get_system_health_report

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, and the description adds meaningful context by listing the diagnostic areas it covers and noting that it returns severity-coded findings. It does not discuss performance implications or authentication, but for a safe read-only report, disclosure is adequate.

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 two short paragraphs, front-loaded with a clear summary and then a concise bullet-like list of what it checks. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or filler.

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?

For a no-parameter, read-only report with an output schema, the description covers purpose, content areas, and output style. It could explicitly mention when to prefer this over individual status tools, but that gap is minor given the schema and annotations handle return structure and safety.

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 there is nothing to explain. Baseline score of 4 applies, and the description appropriately avoids extraneous parameter details.

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 identifies the tool as a 'Full system health dashboard' that aggregates all diagnostics into one report. It enumerates the specific areas checked (system status, interface health, service status, etc.), distinguishing it from granular tools like get_gateway_status or get_openvpn_server_status.

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 description implies usage for a comprehensive health overview via phrases like 'combines all diagnostics' and 'full system health dashboard.' However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools for narrower queries, leaving some room for ambiguity.

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