check_health

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully discloses that latency is included and that the tool returns guidance instead of failing when Bridge is down. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, but for a connectivity check this is a relatively minor omission.

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?

Two sentences, each earning its place. The core action and scope are front-loaded, and the Bridge-down behavior is stated without extra verbiage.

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 one-parameter diagnostic tool with an output schema, the description is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly. It covers scope, protocol coverage, latency, and failure behavior, leaving no critical ambiguity.

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. It does: 'one account or all of them' clarifies that omitting the optional account parameter checks all accounts while providing a string checks one. It does not specify the expected account format, but the parameter is simple and optional.

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: check IMAP and SMTP connectivity with latency. It clearly defines scope ('one account or all of them') and differentiates itself from the sibling bridge_status by focusing on protocol connectivity while still addressing Bridge-down behavior.

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 context for when to use this tool is clear: it is for checking IMAP/SMTP connectivity, with an explicit one-account-or-all scope. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the Bridge-down behavior implicitly distinguishes it from a simple bridge status check.

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