health

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does convey that the tool reports server state without exposing mutation, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, requires no parameters, or that it may fail when the server is unhealthy. This is adequate but leaves some implicit behavior unstated.

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, front-loaded phrase that names the tool's purpose first and then lists the key output components. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 zero parameters and the presence of an output schema, the description is mostly complete for a simple health-check tool. It identifies the high-level contents of the response, though it does not explicitly mention connection failure behavior or authentication expectations, which are minor gaps for a status endpoint.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing to document. Per the baseline for parameterless tools, the description does not need to add parameter meaning, and the empty schema is already fully covered.

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 identifies this as a server-status tool and specifies the exact status components (collection, indexed device count, inference device). It is easily distinguishable from the sibling search/retrieval tools, though it lacks an explicit verb such as 'returns' or 'reports'.

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 explicit when-to-use or exclusion guidance is provided, but the name 'health' and the phrase 'Estado do servidor' strongly imply this is the tool to check server status. The sibling tools are clearly different in purpose, so confusion risk is low, yet the description does not directly state when to prefer this over alternatives.

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