ragflow_health

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the required OAuth scope, Arbiter policy, and ProofLink receipt, which are useful behavioral traits. It doesn't explicitly state read-only, but 'check health' implies it. This is more than minimal but not exhaustive.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then necessary auth/receipt context. No filler.

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 health check with no parameters and no output schema, it states what it returns (ok status, dataset count), the required scope, and the receipt guarantee. It doesn't give details about the format or edge cases, but for this simplicity, it's adequately complete.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter semantics (none needed), and the schema already indicates no parameters.

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 a specific verb 'Check' and specific resource 'RAGflow RAG platform health', clearly distinguishing it from sibling health tools for other platforms. It also states the return values (ok status and dataset count).

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?

It provides clear context: use this to check RAGflow health. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, though the sibling list has other platform health checks. This falls short of explicit exclusion guidance.

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