simplengat_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 does mention costs (image ~0.25 credits, video ~3 credits), which is useful, but it fails to disclose whether the tool is read-only or actually invokes generation endpoints (which would consume credits). It also doesn't mention potential side effects (e.g., creating test artifacts), rate limits, or authentication requirements. For a health check that may incur costs, this is a significant transparency gap.

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 sentence that packs purpose, cost details, and usage guidance efficiently. It is front-loaded with the core action ('Health check SimpleNGAT') and includes the overall result format. No wasted words, though it is slightly dense with Indonesian/English mixing, but that is not a structural flaw.

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 must clarify the return value. It states 'Overall: healthy/degraded/down,' giving a high-level status, but it does not describe whether detailed per-service status is included or how polling works (though pollVideo is in schema). For a health check tool, the description is minimally adequate but could be more complete by indicating the response structure and any error cases.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters with defaults and meanings. The description adds minimal value beyond repeating cost hints (e.g., 'image ~0.25 kredit' mirrors the checkImage description). It does not explain parameter interactions or edge cases. With full schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description does not meaningfully augment it.

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: 'Health check SimpleNGAT' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings (generate image, video, etc.) by focusing on health status and explicitly mentioning it returns 'healthy/degraded/down.' The scope (api+voices, image, video) is specified, leaving no ambiguity about what it checks.

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?

It explicitly states when to use: 'Gunakan saat dicurigai outage/maintenance' (use when suspected outage/maintenance). This is clear usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or point to alternative tools, though the sibling list makes it obvious that generation tasks should use other tools. The guidance is sufficient for an agent to select it correctly.

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