Opentoonz Health

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully names the three components probed, but says nothing about whether it fails fast, reports per-component status, or has side effects — though the read-only nature is strongly implied by 'availability check' and the return shape is covered by the output schema.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource list is the only detail and it earns its place by defining the probe's scope.

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, read-only health probe with an output schema covering return values, the description supplies enough to call it correctly. The only missing piece is how it relates to opentoonz_doctor, which the sibling list makes relevant.

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 and the description correctly introduces none, so there is no parameter semantics to clarify. Baseline 4 applies for a parameterless tool.

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 ('availability check') and enumerates exactly what is checked (runtime, tcomposer, ffmpeg), so an agent knows this is a dependency probe, not an action. It does not differentiate itself from the similarly-scoped sibling opentoonz_doctor, leaving ambiguity about which probe to prefer.

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 word 'Quick' implies a lightweight pre-flight check, which hints at when to call it, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusion, and no mention of opentoonz_doctor as the heavier alternative. Usage is only inferred from tone.

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