health_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates the tool checks connection and auth status but does not describe what happens on failure, whether it makes network calls, or what the return format looks like. This is adequate for a simple health check but lacks depth.

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 two compact sentences plus a short example. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, and every sentence adds value. No wasted words or redundant information.

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 extreme simplicity (no params, no output schema), the description covers the essential context: what it verifies and when to use it. It does not describe the response format, but for a health check, the purpose and usage are sufficiently complete.

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 has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% vacuously. As per guidelines, the baseline for zero parameters is 4. The description does not need to add parameter meaning since there are none, and it appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose.

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 ('Verify') and resource ('Linear API connection') and clearly states the additional check of authentication status. It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like search_issues and create_issue, which operate on domain data rather than connection 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 explicitly states 'Use this to troubleshoot connection issues' and gives a natural language example. It does not mention when not to use or alternative tools, but the when-to-use guidance is clear enough for a health check utility.

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