tomo_health

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the tool 'checks reachability' but discloses nothing about timeouts, side effects (read-only vs. state-changing), error responses, or whether it makes a network call. For a health-check tool, an agent needs to know that it is safe, non-destructive, and returns a simple success/failure – none of which is stated.

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?

A single sentence of 10 words with no fluff. Every word contributes to defining the tool's purpose. Perfectly concise for the complexity of a no-parameter health check.

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 (zero params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but not complete. It does not explain what a 'reachable' response looks like or how the agent should interpret failure. A health-check tool benefits from mentioning that it returns a boolean or succeeds/fails, which 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?

There are zero parameters and schema coverage is 100% (vacuous). With no inputs to describe, the description satisfies by stating the tool's action. A baseline of 4 applies because there is nothing more needed about parameters, and the description adds value beyond the schema by clarifying the tool's purpose.

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 uses a clear verb ('Check') and specifies the exact resource ('Tomo Streaming control plane reachability'). This cleanly distinguishes it from sibling tools that manage servers, rooms, and rooms (e.g., tomo_list_rooms lists rooms, tomo_health checks connectivity).

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 usage as a connectivity check before other operations, but does not explicitly state when to use it (e.g., 'Use before other calls to verify the control plane is up') or when not to use it. No alternatives or exclusion criteria are mentioned; agents must infer the context from sibling names.

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