itglue_health_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read-only operation ('check connectivity') but does not explicitly state non-destructiveness, return format, or error behavior. It adds some context by specifying the mechanism (fetching organization types), but lacks a full behavioral disclosure.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It effectively communicates the tool's purpose without padding.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns or how connectivity is indicated. It merely states the action and mechanism, leaving the user to infer the result. This is incomplete for a simple health-check tool.

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 schema is trivially complete. The baseline for 0 params is 4; the description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it doesn't.

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 'Check connectivity' and identifies the resource (IT Glue API) and method (fetching organization types). It clearly distinguishes this tool from all sibling tools, none of which are health checks.

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 for verifying API connectivity but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide exclusions. Since the tool is unique among siblings, the implied usage is clear, but no explicit guidance is given.

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