health

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('Check') and subject, but does not mention any side effects, output format, authentication requirements, or whether it is a safe read-only operation. This is a significant transparency gap for an unannotated tool.

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 a single, focused sentence that states the tool's purpose without any waste. It is front-loaded and easy to scan, scoring high on conciseness.

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 tool's low complexity (no parameters, no output schema, straightforward purpose), the description covers the essentials. It could have explained what 'health' includes or what the response looks like, but for a simple health check tool, the level of detail is adequate.

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 naturally adds no parameter-level detail. Baseline for zero params is 4, and the description correctly focuses on the tool's purpose rather than parameter semantics.

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 uses a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('server health and tool availability'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ctf_status or vpn_status, which focus on more specific areas.

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 implies usage for verifying server health and tool availability, but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or provide any exclusions. There is no mention of context or alternative tools, but the purpose itself makes usage reasonably inferable.

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