check_health

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It lists the components checked but does not state that the operation is read-only, whether it makes any changes, or what the output/return format is. An agent cannot infer side effects, permission requirements, or how to interpret results from this description alone.

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 concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, then lists the components. Every word earns its place, and the structure is immediately scannable.

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 simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description covers the scope of what is checked. However, it does not explain what the result looks like (e.g., a summary, pass/fail, detailed diagnostics) or what 'health' means in practice. Since the output schema is absent, the description should provide at least a hint of return semantics, which it omits.

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 no parameters, so the schema is trivially complete. The description inherently needs no parameter explanations. Per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4, and there is no reason to deduct since the description adds no misleading or missing parameter info.

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 ('Cek kesehatan' = check health) and a specific resource ('rantai devns' = devns chain), and enumerates the components checked (resolver, DNS, Caddy, HTTPS). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings that manage domains (list_domains, add_domain, remove_domain) or check DoH status (doh_status). It is not a tautology and provides concrete scope.

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 states what it does (checks health) but gives no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. It does not mention whether to prefer this over doh_status for DoH-specific checks, nor does it specify prerequisites or typical scenarios. The context is implied ('health') but there is no explicit when/when-not or alternative naming.

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