Get Health Check Config

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description carries a lower burden. However, it contributes nothing beyond that: no indication of what configuration is returned, whether it is live status or stored settings, or any caveats. It adds zero behavioral context on top of the annotation.

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?

A single short sentence is appropriately sized and front-loaded, so there is no wasted padding. But the brevity comes from under-specification rather than precision, so it is only minimally acceptable.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values, and with no parameters the surface is small. Even so, the description gives no clue what 'health check config' covers or how it relates to sibling config getters, leaving the agent to infer scope entirely from the name.

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 takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is no parameter semantics to document or compensate for, and the description introduces no confusion on this dimension.

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 "获取健康检测配置" is essentially a restatement of the tool name and title (Get Health Check Config) in another language. It names a verb and resource but adds no scope, distinguishing detail, or differentiation from the many other get_*_config siblings in the list.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. It is unclear whether this is a read-only diagnostic view or overlaps with tools like get_system_overview or run_router_health_report. The agent must guess when this is the right tool.

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