rba_health_check

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists the components being diagnosed and mentions 'optional eval/ping health,' but does not specify whether the tool is read-only, has side effects, requires permissions, or what happens during 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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the verb 'Diagnose' and efficiently lists the full scope. Every word contributes to the meaning, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

The tool appears moderately complex, checking multiple components, but the description omits any information about return values, error behavior, or parameter effects. With no output schema and 0% parameter coverage, the description is insufficient for an agent to fully anticipate the tool's behavior or results.

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 includes two parameters (timeoutMs and includePing) with 0% coverage in the description. The phrase 'optional eval/ping health' vaguely hints at includePing but fails to explain either parameter or its effect, offering minimal semantic value beyond the schema.

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 what the tool does with the verb 'Diagnose' and enumerates specific components (RBA bridge, Instance Manager endpoint, connected clients, autoexec targets, recent errors, and optional eval/ping health). It distinguishes itself from siblings by covering multiple areas, though it does not explicitly name an alternative or comparison.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks any mention of preferred scenarios, exclusions, prerequisites, or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name and scope.

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