frigate_check

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

With no annotations present, the description is the sole behavioral signal. 'Checks health and version' correctly implies a read-only diagnostic operation rather than a mutation, but it does not disclose what happens on failure, whether any external service is contacted, or what 'health' encompasses.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It conveys the action and object immediately and earns its place.

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 health check with an output schema present, the description covers the essential purpose without needing to document return values. A short note distinguishing it from frigate_stats would improve completeness, but the current text is not inadequate.

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 and the schema already provides 100% coverage, so there is no parameter detail for the description to add. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter explanation is 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 names a specific action ('Comprueba' = checks) and a specific scope: Frigate's health and version. This is clear enough to separate it from sibling tools like frigate_events or frigate_review, though it does not explicitly name an alternative as the top-calibration examples do.

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 use case is implied: an agent should call this when it needs to verify that Frigate is healthy and know its version. However, the description gives no explicit guidance about when not to use it or when a sibling like frigate_stats would be more appropriate.

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