Health Check

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds that the tool returns ok/error status, which is useful, but provides no further behavioral details (e.g., non-mutating confirmation, error handling specifics). The description is consistent with annotations.

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?

A single sentence that fully conveys the tool's function and return format. Every word earns its place; no filler or redundancy.

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 health check with no parameters and no output schema, the description is complete enough: it states what it checks (reachability, token) and what it returns (ok/error). A minor gap is that it doesn't clarify what 'error' may indicate (e.g., network issue vs. invalid token), but this is not critical for a basic health check.

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, so the description cannot add parameter meaning beyond the schema. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description correctly focuses on purpose and output rather than parameters.

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 clearly states the tool checks if the Canvas API is reachable and the token is valid - a specific verb+resource with distinct purpose. It stands apart from all sibling tools, none of which are health checks.

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 use for verifying connectivity and token validity, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or any preconditions. It is self-explanatory but lacks explicit guidance on timing or exclusion.

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