appwrite_health_time

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Adds valuable context about security implications, but omits whether this is read-only (implied by 'check'), what specific data is returned (time drift? timestamp?), or any side effects.

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: first states function, second provides value proposition. Front-loaded and appropriately sized for a single-purpose health check tool.

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?

Adequate for a simple 1-parameter tool without output schema, but incomplete due to missing parameter documentation. The security justification partially compensates for lack of annotations, though return structure remains undefined.

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 has 0% description coverage for the required 'site' parameter, and the description fails to compensate. No explanation of what 'site' represents (ID, URL, name) or valid formats, leaving a critical gap for invocation.

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?

Description clearly states the specific action ('Check') and resource ('time synchronization status'), distinguishing it from sibling health tools (cache, db, storage, queue). The '[UNIFIED]' prefix and security context further clarify scope.

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?

Implies usage context through 'Important for security and token validation,' suggesting when to invoke (auth issues). However, lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives for general health checks.

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