polaris_health

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: 'live' has no dependencies; 'ready' verifies PostgreSQL and returns a 503 problem document while down; success returns {"status": "ok"}. These are exactly the behavioral traits an agent needs for a health probe.

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 front-loaded, uses a compact bullet list for the two actions, and includes the return value without any wasted sentences.

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 simple one-parameter health tool with no output schema, the description covers action semantics, dependency behavior, failure behavior, and success response. Nothing necessary for correct invocation is missing.

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 schema has only an action enum with 0% description coverage, but the description fully explains both enum values: 'live' means process liveness with no dependencies, and 'ready' means readiness to serve traffic with PostgreSQL verification.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Probe Polaris health.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from the sibling polaris_* domain tools, none of which expose health checking.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance for each action: 'live' for process liveness and restart probes, 'ready' for readiness to serve traffic. The selection criteria between the two actions are fully specified.

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