health_check

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds the genuinely useful fact that no authentication is required, which affects how an agent can call it. It stops short of saying what the health payload contains (status codes, uptime, component list), and no output schema exists to fill that gap.

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?

Short and front-loaded: purpose first, then auth, then use cases, then the sibling pointer. The only blemish is inherited docstring whitespace and line wrapping that adds no information.

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 zero-parameter read-only probe this covers purpose, preconditions (no auth) and the alternative tool, which is what an agent needs to decide and call. The one remaining gap is the shape of the returned health data, which matters slightly more because no output schema is published.

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 nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline applies. The description correctly implies a parameterless call by describing it as a simple liveness probe.

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+resource ("Return system health information") and immediately scopes it against the richer sibling kiln_health, which covers version, modules, scheduler and webhooks. An agent can tell these two apart without opening either schema.

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?

Names concrete use cases (container healthchecks, dashboards, verifying the server is responsive) and explicitly routes the agent to kiln_health when deeper diagnostics are needed. Both when-to-use and the alternative are stated.

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