medeval_health

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate those. It adds the 'local' scope and 'bounded capability summary' details, which provide extra context about the tool's behavior without contradicting the annotations. This goes beyond a tautology and gives the agent a clearer picture of what to expect.

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, tight sentence starting with the actionable verb 'Check'. It is front-loaded and contains no fluff, making it easy for an agent to grasp quickly. Every word serves a purpose.

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 the simplicity of the tool (no parameters, read-only, idempotent), the description is fully sufficient. It states what the tool does and what it returns. The output schema is present, so the description doesn't need to detail return values. Nothing an agent needs to call this tool correctly is missing.

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?

With zero parameters, the description doesn't need to explain any input requirements. The schema covers 100% (empty object), and the tool's purpose is fully captured by the description. There is nothing missing regarding parameters.

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 verb 'check' and the resource 'local backend', producing a specific, unambiguous purpose. It distinguishes itself from all sibling tools, which are data operations on projects, workspaces, docs, etc., by being the only health/status tool. The output 'bounded capability summary' further clarifies the tool's 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 use case is implied by the nature of a health check—likely to verify backend availability before other operations—but the description provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it reference any alternatives. While the tool's name and purpose make it obvious, the lack of explicit usage context leaves some ambiguity about when an agent should invoke it.

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