health_check

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

The description discloses the return structure (status, url, cluster_info) which provides some behavioral insight. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or non-destructive, and no annotations are provided to fill this gap.

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 highly concise with two sentences. It starts with the main action and follows with a bullet-like list of return fields. Every word adds value, no redundancy.

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 simplicity of the tool (no parameters, no annotations, and output schema present), the description is complete. It clearly states the return format, which is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior and output.

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 no parameters (input schema empty, coverage 100%). According to rubric, 0 parameters yields a baseline of 4. The description does not add parameter information, but none is needed.

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 Elasticsearch connection health.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools which focus on error analysis.

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?

No explicit guidelines on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose implies it is for verifying connectivity, the description lacks context such as prerequisites or scenarios where it is particularly useful.

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