vibo_healthcheck

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

With readOnlyHint and openWorldHint already declaring the safety profile, the description adds real behavioral value: it discloses the success contract (ok:true plus account id) and ties the outcome to credential validity. It omits what a failure looks like (auth error vs. thrown exception), so it is not fully transparent.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the action and its purpose stated first and the return contract second. Every clause 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?

With no output schema, the description correctly carries the return-value burden by naming the ok:true payload. For a zero-param diagnostic this is nearly enough; only the failure mode is left unstated.

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, so there is no parameter semantics to clarify and the baseline of 4 applies. Nothing in the description conflicts with the empty schema.

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 and resource: verify connectivity/authentication by fetching the current user. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not differentiate itself from the sibling vibo_get_me, which also fetches the current user, leaving the agent to infer which to call.

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?

Usage context is explicit — run it to check that credentials work — which is a clear when-to-use signal for a diagnostic tool. It stops short of exclusions or naming vibo_get_me as the richer alternative, so it is clear context without routing rules.

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