Aegis Health Check

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions what is checked ('credential and agent counts') but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, response format, or whether this is a read-only operation. For a health check tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Check the health status of Aegis') and adds specific details ('including credential and agent counts') without waste. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema) and lack of annotations, the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It covers the purpose and scope but misses behavioral aspects like response format or usage context. Without annotations or output schema, more detail on what the health check returns would improve completeness.

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 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as it avoids redundancy while being complete for a parameterless tool.

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 the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('health status of Aegis'), including what aspects are covered ('credential and agent counts'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'aegis_list_services' and 'aegis_proxy_request' by focusing on health monitoring rather than listing or proxying. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings beyond the implied scope difference.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, frequency, or scenarios where health checks are appropriate compared to 'aegis_list_services' (which might list services without health details) or 'aegis_proxy_request' (which might involve active requests). Usage is implied by the purpose but not explicitly stated.

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