Check editor health

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false; the description adds the useful fact that the call is unauthenticated, which tells the agent no credentials or token flow is needed. It does not say what a success versus failure response looks like, which is the key behavioral detail for a diagnostic.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, zero filler. Appropriately sized for a no-argument read-only probe.

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?

Simple zero-param read tool with no output schema, but for a diagnostic the agent still needs to know what result indicates healthy versus unreachable, and that is absent. The unauthenticated note covers the main prerequisite, leaving the outcome semantics as the gap.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a no-parameter tool applies.

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?

Names a concrete operation and target: a connectivity diagnostic against LEVEA_API_URL. That is more specific than the title and distinguishes it from status-checking siblings like check_job_status and check_task_status, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

Usage is implied by the word 'diagnostic' – an agent can infer it is for verifying reachability before or after other calls – but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to alternatives such as check_job_status.

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