Liveness probe

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered structurally; the description adds only the endpoint path. It does not say what a success or failure looks like, whether it requires authentication, or whether failures return non-200 versus an error body — the key behavior for a probe.

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 short sentence with zero filler, but it is under-specified rather than efficient — the terseness costs information rather than saving it. Front-loading is fine; the issue is that nothing meaningful follows.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations about return values, the description carries the burden of explaining what the probe returns and how to interpret it, and it does not. For a diagnostic tool whose entire value is the response signal, this is a meaningful gap.

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 and the schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline for a parameterless tool is 4.

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 identifies a health/liveness check and gives the concrete endpoint (GET /health), so the agent knows what resource is touched. However, it largely restates the title and does nothing to distinguish it from the sibling ops_ready (readiness probe), leaving the two probes ambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus ops_ready or connections_health, and no stated prerequisites or frequency expectations. The agent must infer that a liveness probe is used to check process aliveness rather than dependency readiness.

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