hetzner_health

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that no network calls are made, suggesting it is a local check, but does not explain what 'configured' means or whether it uses cached data or environment variables.

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 extremely concise—two sentences that cover purpose and a critical behavioral trait. No unnecessary words; information is front-loaded.

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 simple tool with no parameters and an output schema present, the description is largely complete. It explains the function and the key safety feature (no network calls), though it could briefly mention the intended use case (e.g., verifying token setup).

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?

There are no parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter details (unnecessary), so it meets the baseline expectation 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 it reports which API tokens are configured, distinguishing it from sibling tools that perform actual API operations. The additional note that it makes no network calls further clarifies its non-invasive role.

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 it is a safe, read-only check (no network calls) but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives. It lacks guidance on prerequisites or when it is appropriate to call.

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