openpanel_health_check

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 implies a read-only health check but does not disclose safety guarantees, potential side effects, rate limits, or what specific health metrics are returned.

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 sentence and appropriately brief. The '[UNIFIED]' prefix appears to be metadata leakage that adds no semantic value, slightly detracting from an otherwise efficient structure.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the high-level purpose but is incomplete due to the total absence of parameter documentation and lack of behavioral context that annotations would normally provide.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for the required 'site' parameter. The description fails to compensate by explaining what 'site' represents (e.g., URL, ID, domain) or providing examples, leaving the parameter semantically undocumented.

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 uses a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('OpenPanel instance health and service status'), clearly identifying the tool's function. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like 'openpanel_test_connection' or 'openpanel_get_instance_info'.

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 (e.g., when to use this instead of 'check_all_projects_health'), nor does it mention prerequisites such as authentication requirements or valid values for the 'site' parameter.

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