check_health

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 states the tool checks health status but does not describe what 'health status' entails (e.g., uptime, response metrics, error rates), how the check is performed, or what the output might look like. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond its basic purpose.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for a simple health-check tool. Every part of the description earns its place by clearly stating the tool's function.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema), the description is minimal but incomplete. It lacks details on what 'health status' means, expected output format, or any behavioral traits. Without annotations or output schema, the description should provide more context to fully inform usage, but it does not compensate for these gaps.

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 no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not add parameter details, which is appropriate. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as the description correctly avoids unnecessary parameter 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 'Check AgentZone API health status' clearly states the action (check) and target resource (AgentZone API health status), which is specific and unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_stats' or 'get_analytics', but the focus on 'health status' provides reasonable distinction. This avoids tautology and is not misleading.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_stats' or 'get_analytics', which might also provide system status information. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions. Usage is implied only by the tool name and description, with no explicit instructions.

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