run_router_health_report

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

With readOnlyHint=true annotation already declaring the operation as read-only, the description adds minimal extra context—only that it runs a health report. It does not disclose potential time-to-complete, data scope, or any authentication requirements, but it does not contradict the annotation either.

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, concise phrase—'运行路由体检'—with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter tool and earns its place without waste.

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 zero parameters and the presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently identifies the tool's purpose. However, it does not explain what the health report contains or when to use it relative to other diagnostic tools, leaving a small gap in contextual 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?

This tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100% by default. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics, and the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, which is appropriate here.

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 action ('运行' meaning 'run') and the resource ('路由体检' meaning 'router health check'), making it specific and actionable. It distinguishes itself from sibling get_* tools by specifying a run operation rather than a simple retrieval.

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 context about when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of exclusions, and no reference to related tools like get_health_check_config. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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