system_health

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

The annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description's job is simpler. It adds specific context by mentioning 'enhanced post-secret protections', which indicates the health check includes security-related status. There is no contradiction, and it helps the agent understand the focus of the report.

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, succinct sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It is concise with no redundant information, and every word adds value in communicating what the tool does.

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 (zero parameters) and the richness of annotations, the description is sufficient. It explains the purpose and key focus areas. The output schema exists, so return values are documented separately. No significant gaps are present for this straightforward health check.

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 parameter semantics are not applicable. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and with no parameters, a baseline of 4 is appropriate since there is no confusion about inputs.

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 reports gateway capabilities and whether enhanced post-secret protections are active. It uses specific verbs ('report') and resources ('gateway capabilities'), and while it is not explicitly contrasted with siblings, the subject matter is distinct from the listed sibling tools which deal with files, workspaces, and shells.

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 that this tool is for checking system health or status, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus other tools like workspace_status or windows_shell_status. There is no mention of exclusions or alternatives, though the purpose is clear enough for an agent to infer usage in a health-check context.

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