health_check

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does (check availability) without describing how it performs the check (e.g., ping, HTTP request, timeout), what 'available' means (e.g., responding within X seconds), or the response format (e.g., boolean, status code, error details). For a diagnostic tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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, clear sentence: '检查火云本地服务是否可用'. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, has zero wasted words, and is appropriately sized for a simple tool. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying the action and target.

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 tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema), the description is minimal but incomplete. It lacks behavioral details (e.g., how the check is performed, response format) and usage guidelines, which are crucial for an agent to invoke it correctly. Without annotations or output schema, the description should provide more context about what 'available' entails and what to expect in return.

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 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (though trivial since there are no parameters). The description doesn't need to explain parameters, so it meets the baseline expectation. No additional parameter information is required or provided.

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 tool's purpose: '检查火云本地服务是否可用' (Check if the Huoyun local service is available). It specifies the verb ('检查' - check) and resource ('火云本地服务' - Huoyun local service), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'env_runtime_state' or 'env_query' that might also provide service status information, preventing a perfect score.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, timing (e.g., after deployment or during troubleshooting), or compare it to siblings like 'env_runtime_state' that might offer similar functionality. This lack of context leaves the agent guessing about appropriate usage scenarios.

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