kiln_health

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that by listing the reported signals (versions, uptime, module availability, scheduler status, webhook status, overall health), which tells the agent what it will learn. It stops short of describing latency, cost, or how 'overall system health' is encoded.

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 core action is front-loaded in the first sentence and the return contents follow in one compact list. No filler, though the stray indentation and line breaks are cosmetic noise.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining return values, and it does so by naming each reported field. The only gap is that the possible values or interpretation of 'overall system health' are not indicated, which matters for a diagnostic 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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline applies. No misleading parameter claims are made.

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 concrete verb and resource ("Get a health check for the Kiln system") and enumerates what is reported, so an agent knows this is a broad system-status read rather than a printer or database probe. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the very similar sibling 'health_check', which is the main source of ambiguity.

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?

"Use this to verify the system is running correctly" gives an implied usage context but no explicit when-not guidance and no routing to alternatives such as health_check, printer_status, database_status or encryption_status. In a fleet with many status tools, that leaves the agent to guess which probe to call.

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