cacheout_system_health

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds valuable behavioral details: health score formula, penalties, and mode-dependent behavior (socket vs standalone). No contradictions 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?

The description is well-structured: purpose first, then return details, mode explanation, and formula. Every sentence is informative, and the code-like formula is concise.

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?

Given no required parameters and the presence of an output schema (indicated), the description adequately covers the tool's behavior, mode, formula, and return format. No gaps identified.

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?

There are no parameters to document (schema has no properties), and the description correctly notes 'No parameters required.' With 0 parameters, baseline is 4, and no additional semantics are needed.

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 'Get overall system health score with alerts', specifying the resource and action. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like cacheout_check_alerts or cacheout_get_compressor_health, but the purpose is distinct enough.

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 explains two modes (socket vs CLI/standalone) with latency implications, providing some context on when to use. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or alternatives among siblings.

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