appwrite_health_check

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It successfully discloses behavioral output ('Returns status of database, cache, storage...'), but misses safety profile confirmation, authentication requirements, or rate limit details that would be expected for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. Front-loaded with the key purpose ('Comprehensive health check'), followed by specific return value details. Every sentence earns its place.

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 lack of annotations, output schema, and parameter documentation, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose but leaves critical gaps in usage context (parameter semantics, detailed behavioral traits). Adequate for basic selection but insufficient for correct invocation.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the 'site' parameter is undocumented in the schema. The description fails to compensate by explaining what 'site' means, what format is expected (URL, project ID, etc.), or providing any examples.

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?

Clear specific verb ('health check') and resource ('all Appwrite services'). The terms 'Comprehensive' and '[UNIFIED]' effectively distinguish this from sibling tools like appwrite_health_db, appwrite_health_cache, etc., which check individual services.

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 '[UNIFIED]' prefix and 'Comprehensive' wording imply this aggregates individual health checks, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus the specific service health checks (appwrite_health_db, etc.).

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