health.check

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only says 'Get', implying a read operation, but doesn't explain what 'health status and metrics' entails, potential errors, or any side effects. There is no information about output format or whether the check itself could be disruptive, leaving significant ambiguity.

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, well-formed sentence with no filler words. It directly states the action and target, making it highly concise and appropriately 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?

The tool has a simple interface (one optional boolean) and no output schema, so the description needs to compensate by explaining return values and parameter effects. It only says 'health status and metrics', which is vague and doesn't inform the agent about the shape of the response or what 'detailed' does. This leaves the agent under-informed for invocation.

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 input schema has one parameter, 'detailed', with 0% description coverage. The tool description does not mention this parameter at all, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema. The parameter name 'detailed' offers some hint, but the description fails to clarify its effect on the returned metrics.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and identifies the exact resource ('server health status and metrics'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from all siblings, which cover wiki, memory, knowledge base, summaries, dashboards, and source ingestion, none of which relate to health checks.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: whenever server health status or metrics are needed. While it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, none of the sibling tools serve a similar purpose, so no exclusions are necessary. The context is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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