rca_admin_health

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by specifying the returned data (uptime, models/graphs, storage stats) and the return type (JSON string), providing context beyond the annotations.

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 extremely concise: one line for purpose and one for args/returns. Every sentence serves a clear purpose with no redundancy. It is well-structured and front-loaded.

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 health-check tool with an existing output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what it returns (uptime, models, storage), required parameters (token, client_id), and return type. No gaps are evident.

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 description merely lists parameter names ('token, client_id') without adding meaning beyond the input schema. The schema already provides descriptions for both parameters, so the description adds no additional semantic value. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given schema coverage.

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 explicitly states the verb 'Return' and the resource 'server health status' including specific details like uptime, loaded models/graphs, and storage stats. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like rca_admin_read_audit_log or rca_admin_purge_namespace.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or contraindications. The context of checking server health is implied but not explicitly placed relative to other operations.

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