run_sys_health

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It never states that the operation is read-only/non-destructive, whether it needs elevated privileges to read disk or memory stats, or what the report contains; 'health check' implies a safe read but that is inference, not disclosure.

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?

One compact sentence with the purpose front-loaded and no filler. It is arguably too terse rather than padded, but nothing written is wasted.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented kwargs parameter, the definition leaves the agent guessing about invocation format and return shape for what should be a simple diagnostic. A short sentence on the report contents and kwargs expectations would close the 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 single parameter is an opaque string called 'kwargs' with 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not explain what it accepts or how to format it. The mention of disk/memory/uptime might hint at selectable checks, but no mapping to kwargs is given.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('system health check reporter') and enumerates the covered areas (disk, memory, uptime), so an agent knows exactly what it collects. It does not differentiate from any sibling, though the siblings listed are mostly unrelated (pets, db, curl), so the omission costs little.

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?

No when-to-use guidance beyond the adjective 'Quick', which only vaguely implies a lightweight diagnostic versus something heavier. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or named alternatives among the siblings.

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