healthcheck

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses the behavior: requires access_token, calls a specific endpoint, returns success indicator or structured error. It lacks mention of rate limits or side effects, which are minimal for a health check.

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 concise, front-loaded with the primary purpose, includes a secondary language line, then details on endpoint, auth, and return value. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 health check tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, endpoint, auth, return value, and parameter meaning. It is complete given the tool's simplicity.

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 provides only type and default for 'instance'. The description adds semantic meaning: it names the Alopeyk instance and explains the default behavior. This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 that the tool checks if Alopeyk is reachable via a lightweight call, specifies the endpoint, and explains the return value. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'alopeyk_get_config' which likely returns more detailed data.

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 on when to use (health check) and mentions authentication requirement, but does not explicitly state when not to use or suggest alternatives among siblings. Adequate but not complete guidance.

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