health_check

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes what the tool does (health checks) and what it returns (health status including individual scraper checks and overall status), which adds useful context. However, it doesn't mention other behavioral traits like potential side effects, error handling, or performance characteristics, leaving some gaps.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded. The first sentence states the purpose clearly, followed by a deprecation warning and return value note. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without waste, making it efficient for an AI agent to parse.

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 tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no annotations) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, deprecation, and a high-level overview of returns. However, it could be more complete by explicitly stating that it's a read-only operation or mentioning any dependencies, but this is minor given the context.

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 has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so the schema fully documents that no inputs are required. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, and it appropriately doesn't mention any. Since there are no parameters, the baseline is 4, as the description doesn't contradict or add unnecessary information.

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's purpose: 'Check the health status of all scrapers and services.' It specifies the verb ('Check') and resource ('health status of all scrapers and services'), making the action explicit. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools beyond the deprecation note, which is why it doesn't reach a 5.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: '**DEPRECATED**: This tool is deprecated. Please use flutter_status() instead.' It clearly states when not to use this tool (it's deprecated) and names the alternative tool (flutter_status), which is ideal for helping an AI agent select the correct tool.

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