esp32_health

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the load: 'Read' establishes a non-mutating operation and the enumerated fields tell the agent exactly what comes back with no side effects. It stops short of saying whether the data is cached, whether the board can be unreachable, or anything about failure modes.

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?

Two sentences: the first delivers the complete return payload, the second delivers the workflow cue. Front-loaded, zero filler, and the relay-table column list is compactly parenthesized rather than spelled out at length.

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?

With no output schema, the description must enumerate return values and it does so completely, including the shape of the nested relay table (index, name, pin, state). For a zero-parameter read tool with no annotations, nothing an agent needs before calling is missing.

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 is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline applies. The schema is closed (additionalProperties false, empty properties), matching the no-argument call described.

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?

States a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('board health') and then enumerates the exact payload: firmware version, IP, hostname, uptime, free heap and the relay table with its columns. The closing instruction 'Call this first' separates it from the sensor/GPIO/relay siblings without needing to name them.

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?

Explicitly prescribes ordering — 'Call this first to learn what the board exposes' — which tells the agent this is the discovery step before esp32_read_sensors or esp32_set_relay. It doesn't state exclusions or name the alternatives outright, so it stops short of a full when/when-not map.

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