appwrite_health_cache

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden but only states the high-level action. It does not specify what the health check verifies (connectivity, memory usage, latency), potential failure modes, or required authorization scope.

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?

Appropriately brief and front-loaded, though the '[UNIFIED]' prefix appears to be internal metadata leakage rather than useful documentation for an AI agent.

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 single undocumented parameter and lack of output schema or annotations, the description is insufficient. It fails to explain what data the health check returns or how to interpret the results, leaving major operational 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?

Critical gap: schema coverage is 0% and the description completely omits the required 'site' parameter. An agent has no semantic information about what constitutes a valid value (site ID, domain name, region identifier, etc.), making correct invocation impossible without external knowledge.

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?

Clearly identifies the action (Check) and specific target resource (cache/Redis health status), effectively distinguishing it from sibling health check tools like appwrite_health_db, appwrite_health_queue, and the general appwrite_health_check.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this specific cache health check versus the general health_check tool or other infrastructure health endpoints. No mention of prerequisites, failure conditions, or alternatives.

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