get_system_health

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses what data is returned (import errors, warnings, stats) and implies a read-only operation, but does not explicitly state it is non-destructive or idempotent. Lacks details on authentication or rate limits.

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 structured with bullet points and front-loads the purpose. It is somewhat verbose but each sentence adds value. Could be shortened, but it is clear and well-organized.

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 has no parameters and is a simple health check, the description fully covers its behavior and return format. With the presence of an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description provides sufficient context for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100% by default. The description adds value by enumerating the specific data categories returned, which goes beyond the empty schema. A score of 4 is appropriate for providing meaningful return context.

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 tool's function: getting overall Airflow system health, listing specific components (import errors, warnings, DAG stats). The purpose is distinct from sibling tools like list_import_errors or explore_dag, as it provides a consolidated view.

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 provides explicit usage scenarios: when users ask about problems, for health checks, or starting investigations. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context implies it's for high-level overviews, and alternatives like list_import_errors are more specific.

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