rca_admin_health

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, and the description adds important non-obvious behavior: the aggregate counts are server-instance-wide across ALL users, not just the caller. It also discloses the minimum viewer role requirement and the shape of the returned snapshot.

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 well-structured: purpose first, then usage guidance, then the important instance-wide caveat, then a compact Args/Returns block. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler or redundancy.

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 read-only health-check tool, the definition is complete: it covers when to use it, auth requirements, data scope, return contents, and alternative tools for the non-health use case. The annotations already cover mutability and idempotence, so nothing critical is missing.

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 Args section only lists 'token, client_id' without explaining their semantics, defaults, or relationship to auth. The nested schema does contain short descriptions, but the description itself adds no value beyond the schema, and the context signal indicates 0% schema description coverage, so the description fails to compensate.

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?

Description opens with a concrete verb and object: 'Return server health status and instance-wide aggregate counts.' It clearly distinguishes itself from account-specific tools by stating it is not for checking your own usage, and the annotation title 'Server Health Check' reinforces the purpose.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool ('confirm the server is reachable', 'see which model families are supported') and when not to use it ('not to check your own account's usage'). It also names the alternative tools for the excluded use case: rca_model_list, rca_graph_list_versions, and rca_analysis_list_results.

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