Platform Health

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

Annotations carry only a title, so the description bears the full behavioral burden. It discloses the call is a lightweight pre-flight verification ('verify platform is up') and enumerates what the call returns, which strongly implies a safe, read-only operation. It stops short of explicitly declaring 'no side effects' or auth requirements, but for a parameterless health check these are low-risk gaps.

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 short and front-loaded, but it is redundant: sentence 2 ('Returns ok status, version, and uptime') is repeated nearly verbatim in the closing 'Returns:' sentence. One of the two return statements is unnecessary, especially given an output schema already exists.

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, simple health check with an output schema present, the description is complete: it states the purpose, the return contents, and the appropriate call timing. Nothing an agent needs to safely invoke this tool 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 has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, which makes parameter documentation moot. Per the rubric, a 0-parameter tool earns a baseline of 4; there is no parameter ambiguity for the description to resolve.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Platform health check') and enumerates concrete return values (ok status, version, uptime). However, it does not differentiate itself from the similarly named sibling civitae_status, so an agent may struggle to choose between the two without opening both definitions.

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 phrase 'Call before heavy operations to verify platform is up' provides clear, actionable context for when to invoke the tool. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but for a zero-parameter health check the stated trigger condition is sufficiently directive.

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