run_system_health_check

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true indicates safety, and the description adds a key behavioral constraint: "Only works on SUSE Linux." This is important platform-specific behavior not captured by annotations. The description also lists what the tool checks, giving the agent a sense of the scope. 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 only two sentences but suffers from redundancy. The first sentence already lists "disk space, failed services, updates, orphan packages, and more," and the second sentence repeats a very similar list with "database freshness" and "critical news" added. This redundancy could be tightened without losing information, though it is not overly verbose.

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?

The tool has a simple interface (no params, no output schema), so the description must explain what it does and what it returns. It does a good job of explaining the checks performed, but it does not describe the output format or whether the result is a summary, verbose report, or exit code. The agent may not know what to expect from the invocation despite knowing the inputs.

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?

With zero parameters and full schema coverage (vacuously), the baseline is 4. The description appropriately focuses on what the tool does rather than parameter details. No parameter explanation is needed, and the description does not introduce confusion about parameters.

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's purpose: "Run a comprehensive system health check." It specifies the resource (system health) and the action (run a check), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing its comprehensive nature, integrating multiple diagnostics into a single overview. The list of included checks further clarifies scope.

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 implies usage for a complete health overview, but it does not explicitly provide when-to-use/exclusion criteria or mention alternatives. The "comprehensive" framing suggests it is the all-in-one tool, but there is no direct guidance such as "use this for a general overview, or use sibling tools for specific checks." The SUSE Linux constraint is a prerequisite, not a usage guideline.

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