agent_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. It describes the tool's function (scoring configuration, providing diagnostic reports) and mentions 'No API key needed' which is useful context about authentication requirements. However, it doesn't disclose other behavioral traits like rate limits, whether the operation is read-only, or what happens with the submitted system prompt.

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 perfectly structured and concise. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second explains what you get, and the third provides important context about API keys. The Args section clearly documents the single parameter. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.

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 that there's an output schema (which presumably describes the diagnostic report format), the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the tool does, what input it needs, and what output to expect. For a single-parameter diagnostic tool with output schema, this provides adequate context, though it could benefit from more behavioral details given the lack of annotations.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and only 1 parameter, the description provides excellent parameter semantics. It clearly explains what the 'system_prompt' parameter should contain ('Your agent's system prompt or configuration text'), adding meaningful context beyond what the bare schema provides with just a title and type.

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 specific verbs ('Score', 'get a detailed diagnostic report') and resource ('agent's configuration on governance and best practices'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like check_usage or estimate_agent_cost by focusing on configuration evaluation rather than usage monitoring or cost estimation.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: when you want to evaluate your agent's configuration for governance and best practices. It mentions 'No API key needed' as a prerequisite, but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools.

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