directus_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 of behavioral disclosure but fails to specify what constitutes a healthy/unhealthy status, expected response format, authentication requirements, or whether the check is read-only and safe to invoke frequently. The '[UNIFIED]' prefix is unexplained.

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 extremely concise at one sentence plus a tag. It is front-loaded with the action verb. The '[UNIFIED]' prefix adds minimal value without context, but the core message is efficiently structured without redundancy.

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 apparent simplicity (single parameter, no output schema), the description is inadequate due to the complete lack of parameter documentation and absence of behavioral context. With zero schema coverage and no annotations, the description should have explicitly defined the 'site' parameter and basic operational constraints.

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% description coverage for the required 'site' parameter. The description completely fails to compensate by not explaining what 'site' represents (URL, project ID, name), leaving the agent without semantic guidance for the sole required argument.

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 clearly states the tool 'Check[s] Directus server health status' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling health check tools (e.g., appwrite_health_check, n8n_health_check) by specifying 'Directus', though it could further differentiate from generic project health tools like check_all_projects_health.

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 such as check_all_projects_health, get_project_health, or other Directus monitoring tools. There are no stated prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions for usage.

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