portal_health

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return data (status, version, subsystem health) and the verb 'check' implies read-only behavior, but it does not explicitly state that it is a safe read operation or mention any potential side effects, auth requirements, or failure behavior.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the action, resource, and return information. No wasted words.

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 (no params, no output schema), and the description provides a reasonable overview of what it returns. However, the vague phrase 'any reported subsystem health' leaves the response format somewhat undefined, which could be improved given the absence of an output schema.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema is fully covered by the empty parameter list. Per the guidelines, a 0-parameter tool receives a baseline of 4; the description adds no parameter-specific details, which is acceptable.

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 ('Check') and a specific resource ('SyncForge (MFT) portal'), and it names the tech stack (Spring Boot, Nginx, port 8888). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like system_status or portal_nginx_check.

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 usage for portal health checks but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives such as system_status, sonchat_health, or portal_nginx_check. No exclusions or edge cases are mentioned.

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