shuffle_health

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the required auth scope, the return values, and a notable behavioral trait: every call is governed by Arbiter policy and sealed with a ProofLink cryptographic receipt. It does not explicitly state 'read-only,' but 'Check' and 'Returns' strongly imply a non-mutating operation.

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 two short sentences, with the purpose and key outputs front-loaded. The second sentence adds necessary context about scope and governance without unnecessary elaboration.

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 zero-parameter health check, the description adequately covers what the tool does, what it returns, and what is required to call it. It lacks an explicit note about error handling or interpretation of the 'ok status,' but for a simple health check this is sufficient.

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 baseline is 4. The description appropriately says nothing about inputs, and no parameter details are needed.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Check Shuffle SOAR platform health.' It further clarifies the tool's output by listing 'ok status, user, and workflow count,' which differentiates it from sibling health-check tools targeting other platforms (e.g., langfuse_health, ragflow_health).

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 guidance is given about when to choose this tool over alternative health checks or when to avoid it. It only states the required scope, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and description.

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