jev_health

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds a meaningful, non-obvious trait: readiness reporting does not verify connectivity by default, and probing must be explicit. This is valuable transparency, though it does not mention side effects, permissions, or error behavior.

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?

A single well-structured sentence that front-loads the main purpose and then adds the essential caveat. Every word contributes meaning; there is no padding or repetition.

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 (one optional boolean parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the core semantics and the most important behavioral nuance. It is slightly incomplete in not explicitly mapping the verify parameter to the probing behavior, but overall sufficient.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the single boolean parameter. It indirectly associates "verify" with probing connectivity via "unless explicitly probed," but it never explicitly states that setting verify=true performs the probe. For a single self-explanatory boolean, this is adequate but not strong.

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 states a specific verb and resource: "Report OpenRouter configuration readiness." It is clear what the tool reports on, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tool jev_check, leaving some ambiguity about where the boundary between "health" and "check" lies.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus siblings like jev_check, jev_classify, or jev_score. The caveat "connectivity is unverified unless explicitly probed" implies a conditional usage pattern, but it never states when to choose this tool or how to trigger the probe.

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