kiln_health

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns status data (versions, uptime, etc.) and implies a read-only operation. It does not mention side effects, authorization, or potential performance impact, but for a health check, the behavioral traits are sufficiently clear.

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 two sentences, front-loading the purpose ('Get a health check...') followed by a concise list of returned data and a usage note. Every sentence is informative and without redundancy.

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 health check tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does, what it returns, and when to use it. It is complete within the context of its simplicity and the absence of output schema.

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 has 0 parameters with 100% coverage (trivially). Per guidelines, 0 parameters results in a baseline score of 4. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed.

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's purpose: 'Get a health check for the Kiln system'. It lists specific return values (versions, uptime, module availability, scheduler status, webhook status, overall system health), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'health_check' or 'check_printer_health' by targeting the Kiln system specifically.

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 provides a clear usage context: 'Use this to verify the system is running correctly.' However, it does not explicitly exclude alternative tools or provide when-not-to-use guidance, which would elevate the score to 5.

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