sieve_health_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states that the tool returns health and finding counts, which is minimal. It does not specify whether it is read-only, requires authentication, or has any side effects, leaving significant gaps in transparency.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the core function without any superfluous details.

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 has no output schema, so the description explains it returns health and finding counts, which is fairly complete for a health check. However, it could be more specific about the format or structure of the counts. Sibling tools are diverse, and no cross-references are needed for this simple tool.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage (empty). According to guidelines, a baseline of 4 is appropriate when no parameters exist, and the description does not need to add any param info.

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 it returns Sieve service health and finding counts, specifying the verb 'returns' and the resource 'Sieve service health and finding counts'. It stands out from siblings like sieve_check_text or sieve_findings_list which handle different operations.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings. However, as a health check tool, its purpose is implied: to check service status. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, which is acceptable for a straightforward query.

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