nv_health

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

Annotations are absent, so the description alone must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions checking the API key and reporting catalog size, but omits side-effect status (likely read-only), error behavior, or performance implications. This fails to fully carry the disclosure burden.

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?

One sentence, no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose and keeps the description minimal, which is ideal for a zero-parameter health check.

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 is simple, has an output schema, and no parameters, so the description need not explain return values. However, it lacks guidance on when to use this tool among the many siblings, leaving the decision context incomplete for an AI agent.

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 has zero parameters, so the description adds no parameter-specific semantics. Baseline 4 is appropriate because there is nothing to document; the description correctly reflects the input schema's emptiness.

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 uses the specific verbs 'Check' and 'report' to describe a health-check resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like nv_call or nv_list_models. It states exactly what the tool does: validate the API key and output catalog size.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives are provided. The context of a health check is implied (e.g., verifying connectivity before other calls), but the description does not state this or mention when not to use it.

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