linka-health-check

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states a read-like operation ('Return health status') but does not describe side effects, required permissions, or response format. The description is too minimal.

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 that directly conveys the purpose. Every word is necessary.

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 tool has no output schema, and the description does not explain the return format (e.g., boolean, string, or structured object). For a simple health check, an agent needs to know what the response looks like. The description is incomplete.

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, and the schema coverage is 100% (since none are defined). Description adds no parameter details, but the baseline for zero parameters is 4.

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 returns health status of the Linka runtime adapter, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'linka-status' or 'linka-bridge-status', which also report status information.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. No context about prerequisites, frequency, or when not to use it is provided.

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