aem_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 states what metrics are checked but does not say whether the operation is read-only, whether it modifies AEM state, what authentication requirements exist beyond credentials in the instance object, or what failure modes look like. This is a significant gap for a tool that could have side effects or require elevated permissions.

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?

Two sentences with no redundancy. The main purpose is front-loaded, the metric scope is compactly listed, and the critical parameter constraint is placed in the second sentence. Every word earns its place.

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?

The description covers what is checked and the input requirement, but lacks information about the output/return format, whether the operation is safe/read-only, and any prerequisites. With no output schema and no annotations, these details fall on the description. It is adequate for a health-check tool but leaves the agent guessing about the result shape and side effects.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by stating the relationship between the parameters ('Either aliases or instances must be provided'), which clarifies that at least one is required and they are not both mandatory. It does not repeat schema details, and the 'overrides aliases' semantics in the schema are preserved implicitly.

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 action ('Performs comprehensive health checks') and the resource ('AEM instances'), and lists the specific metric categories (memory, threads, bundles, requests, repository). This makes it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like aem_bundle_list or aem_logs_search, which target individual subsystems.

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 gives no guidance about when to choose this tool over siblings or when it would be inappropriate. The only usage hint is 'Either aliases or instances must be provided,' which is a parameter requirement, not guidance for selecting between tools. The agent must infer that a health check is the broad diagnostic entry point, but this is not stated explicitly.

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