octo_health_check

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Check' and 'verify' convey that this is a non-mutating reachability probe, which is the essential trait. However, it does not disclose what happens when the API is unreachable, whether failures surface as errors or status payloads, or explicitly confirm zero side effects. The output schema can cover return shape, but failure semantics are left implicit.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler. The verb and resource are front-loaded, and 'Call this first' earns its place as actionable guidance. Every word contributes.

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 zero-parameter, low-complexity health check with an output schema to document return values, the description is complete: it states what the tool does and when to call it. The sibling list confirms this is the only health probe, so there is no routing ambiguity. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 — there is nothing for the description to add or clarify. Any parameter detail would be noise, and the description correctly avoids inventing any.

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?

States a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('Octo Browser API') with a clear intent ('verify the app is running'). It is unambiguous against the sibling list, which contains only profile-management and browser-automation tools — nothing else targets API reachability.

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?

'Call this first to verify the app is running' is explicit timing guidance that tells the agent when to invoke it, namely as a pre-flight check before other operations. It does not name alternatives or when-not conditions, but for a health check there are no natural alternatives among the 35+ siblings, so the timing instruction is the material guidance and it is present.

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