Check service 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 does state the aggregation sources and the verdict categories, but it does not clarify whether the operation is read-only, what time window is used, or how failures in the underlying data sources are handled.

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, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the core behavior and output. Every word adds value, and there is no redundant restatement of the title or schema.

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 the purpose and output verdict categories, and an output schema exists to document return values. However, the lone parameter is not explicitly documented, and there is no guidance on prerequisite service state or when this tool is the right choice, so completeness is only moderate.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description never explains that the required 'name' parameter is the service name. The agent must infer this from the tool title and sibling tools, which is a meaningful gap for the only input parameter.

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 uses a specific verb ('roll up') and resource ('synthetic metrics, SLOs, and open incidents') to produce a clear health verdict. It differentiates itself from sibling tools like get_service and error_budget by emphasizing an aggregated healthy/degraded/down outcome rather than raw service data.

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 this tool is for getting a high-level health verdict, but it never states when to prefer it over alternatives like error_budget, get_service, or list_incidents. No when-not-to-use or alternative routing guidance is provided.

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