check_connector_health

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

The description discloses that it makes real API calls to connectors, but does not discuss latency, rate limits, caching, or any side effects beyond the test. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden, and more detail on behavior would be beneficial.

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 extremely concise with one main sentence and a bullet list of example questions. Every part adds value, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 the zero parameters and no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, what it reports, and usage examples. It lacks mention of prerequisites (e.g., connectors must be configured) but is otherwise adequate.

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 schema coverage is 100%. The description adds context about the tool's purpose but does not need to elaborate on parameters. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 actively tests every configured connector with real API calls and reports health status, last successful data time, and fix instructions. It distinguishes itself from sibling audit and get tools by focusing on connector health rather than waste, costs, or resource details.

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 provides example questions like 'Are all my connectors healthy?' and 'Which connectors are broken or stale?' which implicitly indicate when to use the tool. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use instructions or mentions of alternative tools among siblings.

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