health_check

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states the tool is read-only and safe (no authentication needed) and returns health info. However, it does not disclose return format, side effects, or any caching behavior. For a simple health check, this is adequate but not highly detailed.

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?

Three sentences, each serving a clear purpose: stating the function, providing auth and use case context, and linking to the sibling tool. No wasted words, front-loaded with key 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?

Given zero parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, auth requirements, use cases, and distinguishes from the sibling tool. Nothing essential is missing for this simple health check tool.

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 has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100% (vacuous). According to guidelines, baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate as there are none to describe.

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?

Description clearly states the tool returns system health information for monitoring, and distinguishes itself from kiln_health by specifying that it's for basic health checks while kiln_health provides detailed system information. This is a specific verb and resource with sibling differentiation.

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?

Description mentions no authentication required and lists use cases (container healthchecks, dashboards, verifying server responsiveness). It also provides a see-also to kiln_health for more detailed info, giving context on alternatives. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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