health

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

Annotations already provide read-only and idempotent hints, and the description adds the important behavioral guarantee that only non-sensitive identity data is returned. This is consistent with the annotations and gives an agent useful privacy and scope information.

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 with no filler words. The core action and the non-sensitive scope are front-loaded and directly useful for selecting and invoking the tool.

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?

For a parameterless health check with read-only annotations and an output schema, the description covers all necessary selection and invocation context. It explains what the tool verifies and what it returns, with no missing prerequisites or caveats.

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 input schema is empty with zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. The baseline for no parameters is 4; the description does not need to add parameter guidance.

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 and resource ('Verify authenticated RomM API access') and states the precise outcome ('return non-sensitive connectivity identity only'). Among the siblings, all are CRUD operations, so this clearly identifies health as the connectivity/auth check tool.

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 identifies the tool's use case: verifying authenticated access and getting a safe connectivity identity. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but no sibling performs a health check, so the intended context is unambiguous.

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