Read app health

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world behavior. The description adds a genuine trait beyond them: that the read is passive and does not probe nodes or mutate configuration, which matters for an agent deciding between this and an active diagnostic.

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; the scope of the read and its non-invasive nature are both stated immediately.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and a zero-parameter read tool has no prerequisite or auth detail to carry. What it reads is stated; only the relationship to sibling diagnostics is left implicit.

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 no parameters, so per the baseline a 4 applies. With zero inputs there is no parameter semantics for the description to add or omit.

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 ("Read") and resource ("app health and node expiry observations"), which is more precise than the bare name "health". It does not name a sibling tool, but the "without probing" clause implicitly separates it from diagnostic tools like doctor.

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 phrase "without probing or changing configuration" implies when to prefer this over a probing/diagnostic tool, but it never names an alternative (e.g. doctor) or states an explicit when-to-use condition. Usage is inferrable rather than stated.

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