sonchat_health

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It states that the tool returns status and basic service info, which implies a side-effect-free read operation. However, it does not disclose what fields constitute 'status' or 'basic service info', nor any potential error or latency 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 concise sentence that front-loads the action and clearly indicates the return value. There is no wasted wording 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?

For a simple zero-parameter health check, the description is mostly sufficient. It does not have an output schema, and 'basic service info' is somewhat vague, but the tool's simplicity means the description covers the core use case adequately.

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 empty, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The description adds no parameter-related ambiguity, and the baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools applies.

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 names the resource 'SonChat', clearly conveying a health-check purpose. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like sonchat_activity and sonchat_invites by focusing on online status rather than activity or invites.

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 the tool is for verifying SonChat availability, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over other health-related tools like portal_health or system_status. There are no exclusions or alternative tool references, so guidance is only implied.

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