aliasmail_health_check

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. 'Check' implies a non-mutating probe, but the description doesn't state whether it requires auth, whether it can be rate-limited, or what status fields are returned (and there is no output schema to cover that).

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. 'Health and operational status' is mildly redundant but does not bloat the definition.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the agent has no structured signal about what a health check returns (status enum, component breakdown, latency) or how to interpret a failure. The description names the check but leaves the result contract entirely unspecified.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies.

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 gives a specific verb ('Check') and a specific scope ('health and operational status of the AliasMail infrastructure and API services'), which is clearly distinct from the message/inbox/validation siblings. It stops short of naming an alternative, but the resource is unambiguous.

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?

Use is only implied – an agent can infer this is a diagnostic/availability probe used before or when other calls fail, but the description states no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use condition relative to siblings like aliasmail_check_dns.

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