coronium_get_proxy_health

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It conveys that the tool is non-mutating via 'snapshot' and describes the output contents ('per-modem reachability + recommendation'). It does not mention permissions or rate limits, but for a read-only health check, the key behavioral trait is disclosed.

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 and entirely purposeful: the first defines the deliverable, the second gives actionable usage context. No filler or repetition; information is front-loaded.

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 the low complexity (no params, no output schema), the description is sufficiently complete for selection and invocation. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, and how to respond to its output (swap dead modems). The output content is summarized, which is enough for a health-snapshot 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, so the description cannot add parameter-specific meaning. The empty schema is fully self-explanatory, and the description appropriately avoids irrelevant parameter details, earning the baseline score of 4 for no-parameter tools.

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 function: 'Liveness/health snapshot for all your proxies (per-modem reachability + recommendation).' It specifies a distinct resource (proxy health) and differentiates from siblings like get_proxies or test_modem by emphasizing per-modem reachability and a recommendation.

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?

Explicit when-to-use guidance is provided: 'Call this before retrying through a proxy.' It also gives a clear alternative action: 'swap them with coronium_replace_modem.' This distinguishes it from other proxy-related tools and tells the agent exactly when it should be invoked.

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