health_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it enumerates what is checked (source smoke, breakers, indexes, cron jobs), explains that scheduled_jobs is read from log files, and defines the "degraded" condition (late job or rc != 0). It omits any statement of read-only safety, permissions, or latency, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, with return-value detail following in a logical order. It is appropriately sized for a no-arg diagnostic, though the enumerated job list is slightly dense.

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 must document return values, and it does: overall status, source smoke summary, breaker states, index status, and scheduled_jobs semantics including the degraded rule. With no parameters and a read-only-seeming operation, the remaining gap (safety/permissions profile) is small.

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 there is nothing to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies no input is required.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource scope: "Run a consolidated health check across sources, breakers, indexes and cron jobs." This clearly distinguishes it from every sibling (all search/get/retrieval tools), so an agent can identify it as the operational diagnostic without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is implied by the diagnostic framing, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of when-not to use it, and no alternatives named (none of the siblings are close substitutes, so this is a minor gap). A caller can infer it is a monitoring entry point but is given no trigger conditions.

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