appcrane_get_health

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

No annotations were provided, so the description alone must convey behavioral traits. It explains that the tool bypasses the auth proxy, hits the configured health endpoint directly on the internal port, and returns response status and body. This provides useful insight into the tool's mechanics. However, it does not describe error handling (e.g., what happens if the app is down or the endpoint is missing), which would improve 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, well-structured paragraph with no wasted words. The first sentence states the core function, the second provides use cases, the third explains internal behavior, and the fourth gives parameter guidance. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the layout is easy to parse.

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 health-check tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, use cases, internal behavior, and parameter default. It mentions the return includes status and body. However, it lacks information about possible errors or failure modes, which would enhance completeness for an agent.

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 schema already describes both parameters fully (slug with example, stage with enum and default). The description adds value for the stage parameter by clarifying when to use 'production' vs 'sandbox'. However, no additional semantics are provided for slug. Given 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the added context for stage is sufficient to maintain that score.

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 that the tool fetches the health endpoint server-side, bypassing the auth proxy. It identifies two specific use cases: validating a deploy and checking if the app is responding. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, the purpose is concrete and not a tautology.

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 explicit contexts for using the tool: 'to validate that a deploy actually landed the expected version, or to check if the app is responding.' It also gives a specific guideline for the stage parameter: 'Defaults to sandbox; pass stage="production" only when the user asks about prod.' No explicit exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, but the guidance is clear.

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