health_check

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the return payload explicitly and 'health check' + 'returns' strongly implies a non-destructive read. It stops short of stating side-effect freedom, auth needs, or failure/error behavior, but for a health-check tool the core behavior is adequately conveyed.

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 tight sentences with zero filler: the first states the function and payload, the second states the use case. Information is front-loaded and every sentence 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?

Given no output schema exists, the description usefully enumerates the return categories. Parameters are fully covered by the schema, and the top-level schema description ('Perform deep diagnostic check of the governance system') adds domain context. Minor gaps: no explicit read-only declaration and no error/edge-case behavior, but these are low-stakes for a health check.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema alone fully documents all 4 parameters, including nuanced constraints (e.g., continuity_token is 'not a cross-process resume credential'). The tool description adds no parameter-level information, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('returns') tied to a clear resource ('system status, version, component health, and continuity mode'), which precisely defines what the tool does. It is naturally distinguishable from all sibling tools, none of which are health/monitoring related.

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?

'Useful for monitoring and operational visibility' gives clear context for when to invoke the tool. It does not, however, explicitly name alternatives or exclusions (e.g., no differentiation from the closest sibling check_working_state, nor guidance on when NOT to use it).

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