get_health

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It explicitly states 'Read-only; safe to poll,' explains the underlying HTTP behavior (200 vs 401), and discloses the three possible return statuses plus additional data when healthy. This is thorough and goes beyond minimal expectations.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences that front-load the purpose and then provide necessary behavioral details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no params), the presence of an output schema, and the detailed description of return statuses and safe polling, the description is complete. It covers purpose, behavior, and usage context without leaving significant gaps.

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, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific information, but none is needed. It does clarify the output structure, which is useful, though the output schema likely covers that.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Check that Backrest is reachable and credentials are valid.' This is a specific verb+resource, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on health status rather than returning config, snapshots, or logs.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool (health checks, polling) and mentions it wraps GetConfig, implying the alternative if full config is needed. However, it does not explicitly state exclusions or name alternative tools for specific scenarios, so it stops short of a 5.

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