health

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It states 'No authentication required' and 'safe to call,' which are important transparency cues. It also indicates the tool checks both API health and local auth state, setting expectations for output. It does not mention potential side effects (none expected) or rate limits, but for a health check it is adequately transparent.

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 concise: two sentences that front-load the primary purpose. The first sentence states the verb and resource; the second adds safety, timing, and expected outcome. Every phrase earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 simple 0-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, when to call it, safety characteristics, and what to look for in the result. Nothing significant is missing.

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 0 parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty object). The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description adds no parameter-related information because none is needed. This is appropriate.

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 'Check' and a clear resource: 'PostKing API health and local auth state.' It explicitly mentions what to expect: whether you're logged in and what to do next. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like login_start, whoami, and logout, which focus on different aspects of authentication.

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 clear context: 'safe to call first thing in a session to see whether you're logged in and what to do next.' It indicates when to use the tool but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions. The guidance is sufficient for a health-check tool.

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