ragflow_health

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that by naming the five subsystems checked, so the agent knows coverage is whole-stack rather than a single-ping 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?

A single front-loaded sentence that enumerates the checked components and then stops. No filler, no restatement of the tool name, nothing that could be cut.

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?

With an output schema present, return-value detail is not the description's job, and annotations cover safety. What is left unsaid — liveness versus readiness semantics, timeouts, and cost of a call — is minor for a zero-argument diagnostic.

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?

There are zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter information is missing or contradictory.

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 gives a specific verb ('Check ... healthy') plus an enumerated scope (database, cache, document engine, storage, queue), which pins down exactly what is probed. It is intrinsically distinct from all ~85 siblings, none of which are diagnostic, though it never explicitly says so.

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?

Usage is implied by the name — an agent will infer it should be called to verify connectivity before or after other operations. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over simply attempting a real call, nor any note about frequency, retries, or whether it should be a pre-flight step.

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