stt_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. The word 'check' implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, which is helpful. However, the description does not disclose what the response looks like or what 'healthy' means operationally, leaving some behavioral ambiguity for a health-check endpoint.

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 sentence that is direct and free of filler. It states the resource, the action, and the expected result with no redundant words.

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 zero-parameter health check, the description is largely sufficient. It names the service and the intent, and with no input schema requirements, an agent can invoke the tool without additional setup. The only minor gap is the lack of explicit return value information, but the purpose is clear enough for a health check.

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 schema already fully covers parameter expectations. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed; the baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4.

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') with a clear resource ('dTelecom STT service') and a specific outcome ('running and healthy'). This makes the tool's purpose immediately obvious and distinguishes it from its siblings (transcribe_file and stt_pricing), which handle different concerns.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when an agent needs to verify the health or running status of the STT service. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tools are so semantically distinct that no routing ambiguity is introduced.

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