Run read-only OpenAI health check

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, and the description adds the key behavioral constraint 'This never switches nodes,' plus the fact it probes the real OpenAI API/auth/web path. This adds value beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by a key constraint. Every word earns its place.

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 core purpose and safety profile are clear with annotations and the output schema present, but the lack of parameter documentation and explicit usage guidance leaves some gaps for an agent deciding how to invoke it. A brief mention of config_path and include_node_name would make it complete.

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 has 0% description coverage for its two parameters, and the description provides no explanation of config_path or include_node_name. The agent is left without guidance on what these parameters do, which is a significant gap given the schema defaults and nullable type.

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 'Probe' and clearly states the tool checks direct connectivity and the real OpenAI API/auth/web path through the selected AI group. It also distinguishes itself by noting it never switches nodes, which differentiates it from sibling failover tools.

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 clear context—this is a read-only health check that does not switch nodes—but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. Sibling tools suggest broader diagnostics or failover testing, but the description does not reference them.

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