qradar_health_check

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 the return format (JSON string with connection status, configured host, API test result), which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state that it is a read-only, non-destructive operation, nor does it mention error handling, timeouts, or failure behavior. For a health check, these are somewhat implied but not disclosed. Given the absence of annotations, this is a mild gap.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste: the first states the purpose, the second states the return value. Front-loaded with the core function, perfectly sized for a simple health check.

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 zero-parameter health check, the description covers purpose and return format adequately. The existence of an output schema is signaled, and while we don't see it, the description's return note is sufficient. It does not mention error conditions or prerequisite steps, but these are not critical for a simple connectivity test. The definition is essentially complete for an agent to call it 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, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). The baseline for 0 params is 4; the description adds no param info because none exists, but it doesn't need to. No redundancy or missing param semantics.

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?

States a specific verb ('verify') and resource ('connectivity to QRadar console, authentication validity, API reachability'). This clearly defines what the tool does and distinguishes it from all sibling tools, which are data operations (list, get, update, add, delete). No ambiguity.

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 gives a clear context for when to use the tool: whenever you need to verify connectivity/auth/API reachability. It doesn't mention alternatives, but there is no sibling health-check tool, so no exclusion is necessary. The context is clear enough for an agent to decide to invoke it.

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