mantle_get_health

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It explicitly calls out the HTTP endpoint GET /api/health, which signals a read-only operation, and notably warns that certain spec fields are not yet present in the response, preventing confusion. It does not describe error handling or response format details, but for a health check this is sufficient.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and the caveat about missing fields is valuable without being verbose.

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 (no params, no output schema), the description adequately covers the return fields and caveats. However, it could elaborate on the meaning or type of 'status' or the other listed fields, but that is likely inferable from a health check 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline score of 4 applies. The description implicitly confirms this by not mentioning any inputs, and the schema is empty.

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 specific verb ('Get') and resource ('technical health status of the Mantle Yield backend service'), clearly differentiating from sibling tools that deal with opportunities. It also names the underlying HTTP endpoint, reinforcing its purpose.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose as a health check for the backend service, and sibling tools focus on opportunities/summary, so usage context is clear. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it instead of alternatives or any exclusions, though this is a simple health check.

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