Check Hermes API detailed health

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds the valuable context that the tool 'writes redacted receipts', a meaningful side effect not captured by the annotations. It also confirms it's a typed GET wrapper. This complements the structured data without contradicting it.

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?

Single sentence, zero wasted words. Each clause earns its place: 'Typed GET' sets the call semantics, 'detailed health' indicates scope, and 'writing redacted receipts' adds the distinguishing side effect. Efficient and front-loaded.

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?

For a parameter-free-ish GET health check (0 required params), with full schema coverage, rich annotations (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld), and output schema present, the description is complete enough. The redacted-receipts detail adds important behavioral context, and the output schema handles return value shape documentation.

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 coverage is 100%, so the one parameter (include) is fully documented in the schema with its enum values and description. The description adds 'detailed health' context but doesn't elaborate on parameter behavior. Per the rubric, baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting, which it does 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 states 'Typed GET /health/detailed wrapper that checks the configured Hermes API server detailed health, writing redacted receipts.' It has a specific verb+resource ('checks...detailed health'), identifies the endpoint type (GET /health/detailed), and adds the distinctive 'writing redacted receipts' behavior that differentiates it from the sibling hermes_api_health and hermes_status_overview tools.

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 implies this should be used for detailed health checks vs. the basic hermes_api_health, but doesn't explicitly state when to choose this over alternates. The detailed vs. overview distinction is implied by the name and 'detailed' keyword in the description, but no explicit when/when-not guidance or alternative tool names are given.

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