check_host_health

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. '查询' (query) strongly suggests a read-only operation, and the listed outputs are useful, but it does not explicitly state non-mutation, permissions, or data scope. The word '统一' is also somewhat ambiguous.

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 concise sentence with no filler, and the host-scoping action is front-loaded. The compressed phrasing around '统一当前问题分类' costs a little structural clarity, so it is not a perfect 5.

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?

The required host_identifier is obvious, all parameters are documented in the schema, and the output schema covers return values. The main gaps are lack of when-to-use guidance and some ambiguity in the aggregated outputs, but the definition is largely sufficient for correct invocation.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning about time_range, trend_hours, include_oracle, or include_trends, but all parameters are already well-documented in the input schema.

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 clear host-scoped action with specific output dimensions: interface availability, problem classification, and key metrics. It goes beyond the name, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like quick_status or get_problem_summary.

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 implies when to use the tool: when a host-scoped, current health/composite view is needed. However, it provides no exclusions or explicit alternatives, so an agent cannot fully compare it with host_get or quick_status.

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