diagnostics

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

The description explains the behavioral difference between probe=true and probe=false (initialization vs. side-effect-free snapshot), which is good. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits like potential impacts, authentication needs, or error conditions. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden but still has 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 extremely concise: one sentence for purpose, then a structured arg description. No wasted words, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 description covers the key aspects: main purpose, parameter semantics, and side-effect distinction. An output schema is present, so return values need not be described. It could be more complete by explaining what 'health' encompasses, but overall adequate given the context.

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 0%, but the description adds meaningful details about the 'probe' parameter: what true and false do. This significantly enhances understanding beyond the schema, which only shows type and default.

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 reports health of backend, input, CDP, and optional dependencies. This is a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes from sibling tools which are all action-oriented (click, type, etc.).

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The description only explains the probe parameter but does not provide context about typical use cases or exclusions.

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