video_system_health

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds useful context by stating that credentials are not exposed during the check, but it does not clarify whether the operation is read-only, whether it requires authentication, or what side effects, if any, it may have.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence that lists the checked areas efficiently and adds the credential-safety note without waste.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter diagnostic tool, the description covers what is checked and mentions credential safety. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it should say more about the expected response or whether the check is strictly read-only and needs authentication.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The schema is empty and description coverage is 100%, making baseline 4 appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb, 'Check,' and names three concrete resources: local video-job persistence, queue availability, and browser-session availability. It distinguishes the tool as a system health check rather than a job status or browser-session-only check, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like flow_browser_check_session.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description states what is checked but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as flow_browser_check_session, get_video_status, or list_video_jobs. Usage is only implied by the diagnostic wording.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.