check_health

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

The annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds the behavioral detail of checking reachability and responsiveness, but it does not disclose the return format, per-source behavior, or edge cases like unreachable sources.

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, focused sentence that states the tool's purpose immediately, with no filler or redundant information.

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?

The tool is simple, but without an output schema, the description does not specify what the function returns (e.g., a boolean, status per source, or a summary). This leaves minor ambiguity for an agent that needs to interpret the result, though the core behavior is clear.

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 schema provides a clear description for the single optional 'source' parameter with 100% coverage. The tool description does not add parameter-specific meaning but none is needed given the schema's clarity.

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 the specific verb 'check' with the resource 'registered data sources' and defines the success criteria ('reachable and responsive'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'query' or 'list_sources'.

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 implies a diagnostic use case (verify connectivity) but does not explicitly say when to use this tool over alternatives like 'connect_source' or 'list_sources'. It also lacks explicit exclusions or prerequisites.

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