system_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the specific services checked, including ports, and states the return value (online/offline status and latency). It does not mention potential errors or rate limits, but for a read-only health check, this is adequate.

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-structured sentence that front-loads the main verb and resource. Every service is listed concisely with port details, and the output is clearly stated. 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 params, no output schema), the description fully covers the intended function and output. All services are enumerated, and the return format is specified. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to select and invoke this tool.

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 no parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty object). The description does not need to add parameter details. It implicitly covers the scope of the check, which serves as the only relevant semantic.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Check the health of all Drayhub services' with a specific verb and resource. It enumerates all services (Ollama, Aion Flask API, SonChat, SyncForge/Portal, Fooocus) and distinguishes itself from narrower sibling health checks like sonchat_health or portal_health.

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 a comprehensive health overview, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus individual service health tools (e.g., sonchat_health, portal_health). No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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