ak_health

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

No annotations are provided, so the description itself must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It simply says 'check health' without stating that the operation is read-only, what a healthy or unhealthy response looks like, whether authentication is required, or what side effects (if any) occur.

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 clear sentence that front-loads the action and resource with no wasted words. For a zero-parameter tool, this is appropriately concise.

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 low complexity (no parameters, no nested objects), the description is minimally adequate for recognizing the tool's purpose. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the agent is not told what the health check returns or how to interpret the result, leaving a meaningful gap.

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 baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics because there are none, and the schema is empty and fully self-explanatory.

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 states a specific action ('check') and a clear resource ('agent-kernel API health'), which is distinct from the sibling project, assignment, run, and executor tools. It is not a 5 because 'health' is somewhat generic and does not specify whether this is a liveness, readiness, or dependency check.

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 intended use is implied by the name and description — run it to verify API health — but there is no explicit guidance on when to call it (e.g., before dependent operations, after failures) or exclusions. No alternative health-check sibling exists, so there is no comparison to make.

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