health

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the tool is non-destructive and lightweight, which is a strong behavioral disclosure. The only gap is not explaining what happens if internal state is partially initialized, but for a health check, this is sufficient.

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 extremely concise: one sentence of purpose, then a bullet pointing to return values. Every word earns its place, and it's front-loaded with the key behavioral trait.

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 zero parameters, no annotations, and a simple health check task, the description is complete. It covers purpose, behavior, and return value format (JSON with status and version). No gaps.

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 schema has no parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no param info but doesn't need to.

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 purpose: 'Lightweight health check — returns ok without initializing stores.' The verb 'returns' and resource 'health check' are specific, and the tool distinguishes itself from siblings like 'stats' or 'status' by emphasizing it's lightweight and doesn't initialize stores.

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 explicitly says 'without initializing stores,' implying it's safe to call without side effects. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus other tools like 'stats' or 'status,' though the context is clear enough for an agent to infer it's a basic readiness check.

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