Check Sage Health

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

The description discloses important behaviors beyond annotations: it starts or reuses the workspace's worker, evaluates 1+1, reports readiness and latency, and never errors by returning failures in the result. This is especially valuable because annotations only label idempotent and non-destructive, not the worker-starting side effect.

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 with no wasted words. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by concrete behavioral details and a safety guarantee, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 output schema exists and the parameter schema fully documents the only parameter, the description covers the essential behavioral context: worker lifecycle, probe behavior, latency reporting, and failure handling. An agent has enough to decide whether to call it and what to expect.

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 coverage is 100% and the 'session' parameter has a detailed description covering defaults, scoping, bearer credentials, and secrecy. The tool description adds no further parameter-level information, so the schema carries the burden; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Probe') and resource ('whether SageMath evaluation works right now'), and clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like evaluate_sage by describing a health check that evaluates 1+1 and reports readiness/latency. It also signals a key differentiator: failures are returned in the result rather than raised as errors.

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 when to call it: to probe whether SageMath evaluation works right now. It also implies suitability as a safe preliminary check by noting it reports failure in the result rather than erroring. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, but the intended context is clear.

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