health_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the latency ceiling (~30s because doctor runs network checks) and the failure behavior (an error field is returned). What it doesn't cover (permissions, whether the check is purely read-only) is minor for a diagnostic tool, so a 4 is warranted.

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 sectioned into purpose, when-to-use, return values, and cautions, with the most decision-relevant content (purpose and trigger) front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place; the return-field list is terse and non-redundant.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description fully documents the return shape: daemon_running, doctor_returncode with its enumerated values (0/1/2), verdict, warnings_found, raw_tail, plus the error field on failure. Nothing an agent needs to interpret the result is missing.

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 takes zero parameters, so parameter semantics require no explanation and the baseline of 4 applies. There is no input whose meaning could be ambiguous.

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?

Names a specific action (health check) and a specific resource (the ROS2 environment itself), explicitly distinguishing it from business-node tools. The scope is bounded to daemon status plus doctor diagnosis, so an agent immediately knows what class of problem this tool addresses.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it: when the problem is suspected to lie in the ROS environment/network/daemon rather than business nodes, or when list_nodes comes back empty and further localization is needed. It names the sibling list_nodes and the exact triggering condition, leaving nothing to inference.

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