fathom_health

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

The description discloses 'read-only', which is a useful safety signal given the absence of annotations. However, it does not explain what the health/config check actually returns, how failures are surfaced, or any side effects (though read-only minimizes risk). Minimal context is added beyond the name.

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: 'Read-only Fathom health/config check.' Every word is informative, and there is no wasted text.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is almost sufficient but leaves out return value expectations. The agent does not know whether the tool returns a simple status, metrics, or throws on unhealthy conditions. A sentence about output would complete the picture.

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, so the schema is empty. The description does not need to document parameters, and there is no coverage gap to compensate for. Baseline 4 is appropriate.

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 it is a 'health/config check' for Fathom, using specific nouns that distinguish it from sibling tools focused on meetings. It lacks a strong verb like 'verify' or 'inspect', but the intent is unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the meeting-related siblings. The context implies it is for system health verification, but no explicit when-to-use, prerequisites, or alternatives are mentioned.

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