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. It discloses the kind of data returned (status, transport, store sizes, live refs, uptime), making clear this is a read-only health check. It does not mention side-effect free behavior or response format, but for a health endpoint the behavior is reasonably transparent.

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 compact phrase that lists the key output categories with no filler. It is front-loaded with 'Server status,' which immediately signals the purpose.

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?

For a tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description lists the main return areas sufficiently for an agent to understand what it will get. It could specify whether this returns metrics as a snapshot or continuously, and could include a leading verb, but it is essentially complete for a health-status tool.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema provides no parameter semantics to clarify. The description is not required to explain parameters, and the baseline of 4 applies because there is nothing missing in this dimension.

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 states the tool reports server health information: 'Server status, connection transport, store sizes, live refs, and uptime.' It is clear what resource this covers, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'check' or 'retrieve.' It is sufficiently distinct from all browser-automation sibling tools.

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 implies this tool is for checking server health and uptime, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. Since no sibling tool is a plausible alternative for health checks, the omission is minor, but guidance is still only implied rather than stated.

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