health_check

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects. It explicitly states 'Read-only' and 'Does not change files,' which is strong transparency for this tool. It also clarifies that it only checks existence/readability of environment items, so the agent knows it is safe to run early in a workflow.

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 short sentences deliver the purpose, scope, side-effect guarantee, and usage timing with no filler. The key term 'Read-only' is placed first, and the guidance 'Run this first' is front-loaded, giving an agent the most actionable information immediately.

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 tool, the description is complete enough: it names what is checked, when to run it, and that it is non-destructive. There is no output schema, but the description's list of checked items gives a reasonable expectation of what the agent will learn without needing to document return values explicitly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter documentation burden. The description still adds value by explaining what the tool inspects, which compensates for the absence of a richer schema.

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 names a specific verb ('check'), a clear resource (a new computer/system environment), and enumerates the exact items checked: Node version, CurseForge Instances folder, readable packs, and diagnose logs. It clearly differentiates itself from sibling tools like read_log or list_instances by positioning itself as an aggregate health check rather than a targeted read.

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 explicit placement guidance: 'Run this first on a new device.' This tells the agent when it is appropriate to invoke this tool before other operations. It does not spell out when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the context is clear enough for a zero-parameter read-only tool.

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