Check Hermes API health

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the 'writing redacted receipts' side-effect, which is useful beyond annotations. However, it doesn't clarify what 'redacted receipts' means, what response shape it returns (though an output schema exists), or rate-limit/auth considerations. With strong annotations, a 3 is reasonable.

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, compact sentence that efficiently states the core function. No wasted words. It's front-loaded with the action verb and resource. Slightly loses points for the ambiguous 'writing redacted receipts' clause that raises questions without elaboration.

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 rich annotations (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive) and a 100% schema-covered single parameter, plus an output schema. The description covers the tool's essential function adequately. However, given the large sibling set with closely related health/status tools, a brief note distinguishing it from hermes_api_health_detailed would improve completeness. Still, for a simple read/liveness tool, it's largely sufficient.

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% and there's only 1 parameter with full documentation in the schema ('Whether to perform an HTTP-level connectivity check; always true for this wrapper'). The description adds nothing beyond this since the schema already explains the parameter's semantics including its default and constant behavior. Baseline 3 is warranted since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 it's a 'Typed GET /health wrapper that checks the configured Hermes API server liveness'. Verb+resource is specific ('checks liveness'), though the 'writing redacted receipts' clause adds an unexpected side-effect detail. It's fairly distinguishable from siblings, though hermes_api_health_detailed and hermes_gateway_status are closely related, so some differentiation could strengthen it.

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 doesn't say when to use this tool vs alternatives like hermes_api_health_detailed or hermes_gateway_status. It mentions 'writes redacted receipts' as a behavioral note, but gives no context about when to prefer this health check over the sibling health_detailed variant or status overview. No exclusions or alternatives are named.

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