chaprola_hello

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral details. It states the purpose but omits what happens on success/failure (e.g., return format, status codes) and whether there are side effects. The presence of a 'name' parameter described as 'Name to greet' conflicts with the health-check framing, creating ambiguity about actual behavior.

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 that directly communicates the tool's core function. No extraneous words or redundant details.

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 is simple, but the lack of an output schema means the description should explain what the tool returns or how a health check result is reported. It does not, and the parameter mismatch adds confusion. This incompleteness affects an agent's ability to interpret the tool's result.

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 input schema fully describes the 'name' parameter with a default, so the baseline is 3. However, the description adds no parameter context, and the 'name' parameter seems incongruent with a health check (greeting vs. verification), leaving the agent without clarity on how or whether to use it.

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 is a health check that verifies the Chaprola API is running, using a specific verb ('verify') and resource ('Chaprola API'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that perform data operations, imports, or account management.

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 explicitly identifies the use case: verifying the API is running. While it does not name alternative tools or provide exclusion criteria, the context is clear and sufficient for an agent to know when to invoke this health-check tool.

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