webcheck_health

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

The description adds behavioral context by indicating a network 'probe' for reachability, which complements the readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false annotations. However, it does not disclose what happens on failure (e.g., error response, status codes) or any side effects. Since annotations already cover safety, the description adds moderate value but lacks deeper behavioral details.

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, clear sentence that front-loads the action ('Probe') and resource. There is no redundant or filler content, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 simple health-check tool with full schema coverage and annotations indicating a safe, read-only operation, the description is sufficient to convey the core action and expected outcome. While there is no output schema to clarify the return format, the nature of a reachability probe implies a boolean or status result. A small gap exists in not describing error behavior or return details, but overall it is complete for the tool's simplicity.

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 provides full descriptions of both parameters (timeout and base_url), including defaults and environment variable fallback. The tool description itself adds no additional meaning to the parameters, so with 100% schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Probe') and resource ('the configured Web Check API base URL'), and it explicitly focuses on reachability. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like webcheck_run or webcheck_ssl, which perform specific checks rather than a general health probe.

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 implies this is a preliminary connectivity check for the API base URL, especially given sibling tools like webcheck_list_checks and webcheck_run. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of others, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternative tools. The usage context is implied but not explicit.

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