computer_health

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds value by clarifying that this tool avoids opening apps and making paid requests, which are non-obvious behavioral traits. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand the tool's cost and side-effect profile. However, it doesn't detail what 'health' includes (e.g., does it check network? storage?), leaving some ambiguity.

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 sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Check local setup') and includes key constraints ('without opening an app or making a paid model request'). Every word earns its place, and there is no fluff.

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 (zero parameters, no output schema) and the annotations providing safety details, the description is nearly complete. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings by emphasizing the lack of side effects and cost. The only gap is the lack of detail on what specific health metrics are checked, but this is minor for a tool with no parameters.

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 the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description compensates by indicating the tool operates on the local setup as a whole, which is sufficient for a parameterless tool. It doesn't add syntax details, but none are needed.

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 purpose: checking the local setup without opening an app or making a paid request. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like computer_open and computer_execute, which imply other actions. However, it doesn't specify exactly what 'health' entails (e.g., CPU, memory, disk), which could be clearer.

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 implies when to use this tool: specifically for checking the local setup without side effects. It also hints at exclusions (not opening an app, not making paid requests), which helps differentiate it from siblings. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools for other checks.

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