laya_health

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the non-obvious side effect that probing may start the engine if needed, and explains that a `reachable: false` result surfaces the underlying error. This goes beyond a simple 'check health' statement and gives the agent a realistic behavioral model.

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?

Two sentences deliver a dense but efficient description: the purpose and key payload are front-loaded, followed by the usage condition and error behavior. Every clause earns its place, and there is no redundant restating of the tool name or schema.

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 empty input schemaaren't any parameters and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential decision context: what the tool reports, that it may start the engine, and how to interpret failures. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 input schema has zero parametersless, so the baseline is 4 and the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. The description's enumerated outputs indirectly clarify what the tool returns, but no parameter context is required.

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 opens with a specific verb-and-resource pair ('Report and PROBE the Laya backend') and enumerates concrete outputs: reachable, executable, loaded model/family, device, CUDA-graph status, timeout, uptime, and call count. This clearly identifies the tool as a health/diagnostic probe and differentiates it from the sibling decision/routing tools just by naming its scope.

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?

It gives explicit trigger conditions: 'Use when another tool times out or returns a daemon error.' This is clear operational guidance, though it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or name alternative tools for other situations. The signal is strong enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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