health_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses what is checked (model loaded, DB readable, dirs reachable, cache writable) and the return format (structured pass/fail with summary and fix suggestions). It doesn't state whether the operation is read-only, but the content implies a non-mutating diagnostic. This is good coverage for a health check.

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: the first states the high-level purpose, the second details specific checks and output format. Every sentence adds value, and it is front-loaded with the verb 'Diagnose'. Extremely concise.

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 parameterless tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It explains the checks performed, the return type, and even mentions fix suggestions. There is no ambiguity about what the tool does or returns.

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 provides all the needed information. The description correctly avoids adding parameter syntax since none exist. Baseline 4 applies.

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 it diagnoses server health and configuration, enumerating specific checks (embedder, LanceDB, BASE_DIRs, cache). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'status' tool, but the verb 'diagnose' and listed components make the purpose clear.

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?

Usage is implied: use when needing to diagnose server health. No explicit when/when-not or alternatives are mentioned, such as comparing with 'status' for system-level checks. The description provides context but lacks exclusion guidance.

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