probo_health

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds value by stating the required OAuth scope, the governance/checking via Arbiter, and the ProofLink receipt sealing. This gives meaningful context beyond a simple health check, though it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, which is implied.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by the return value and two contextual details. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 simple zero-parameter health check, the description is complete. It discloses the return type, required scope, and additional governance/receipt behavior. The absence of an output schema and parameters makes this sufficient, though more details about possible failure modes or response formats could be added, but are not necessary for the tool's simplicity.

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, and the schema reflects that. According to the rubric, a zero-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4. The description correctly does not include parameter information since there are none to explain.

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 a specific action ('Check') and resource ('Probo compliance platform health'), and further specifies the return value ('ok status and control count'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like probo_controls, probo_risks, and probo_summary, which focus on other aspects.

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 usage for health checks but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. It mentions the required scope but no exclusions or alternative tool references. The context is clear, but explicit guidelines are absent.

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