system_health

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 adds useful per-source scope and lists the health dimensions, but it does not say whether the call is read-only, whether probe triggers active network checks or side effects, or how circuit state and rate budget should be interpreted.

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 compact fragment with no filler; the colon list is easy to scan and front-loads the core idea. It is arguably too sparse for full guidance, but the brevity itself is well executed.

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?

For a simple one-optional-parameter tool with an output schema, the core purpose is stated, but the probe parameter and safety/behavioral context are missing. It is minimally viable but leaves gaps an agent must guess around.

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 description never mentions the probe parameter, and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description adds no semantics beyond the schema's type and default. The parameter name is mildly self-explanatory, but the definition fails to state what different probe values actually do.

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 phrase 'Per-source health' identifies the resource as source-level health status and enumerates what it covers: reachability, circuit state, rate budget, and last error. It lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'check,' so it is clear but not maximally precise and does not explicitly distinguish itself from release_readiness or access_policy.

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?

No guidance is given on when to call this tool versus its siblings release_readiness or access_policy. There are no exclusion criteria, prerequisites, or context cues, so the agent must infer when this tool is the right choice.

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