trmm_health

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses authentication requirements (scope needed), governance policy (Arbiter constitutional policy), and the ProofLink cryptographic receipt behavior. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, but the phrasing 'Check health' and 'Returns ok status' implies no mutation, giving sufficient context beyond just the tool's name.

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 the core purpose. The first sentence states what the tool does and returns. The second adds necessary security/permission context. Every sentence contributes meaning, with no filler or redundancy.

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-input, no-output-schema health check, the description is remarkably complete. It covers the action, the return values, permissions, and the receipt behavior. No significant gaps are evident for the tool's simple scope.

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 takes zero parameters, and the schema already reflects this with 100% coverage. Baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description adds value by naming the return fields ('ok status and enrolled agent count') which helps set expectations even though there are no parameters 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 the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('Tactical RMM health'), and it directly names the key outputs ('ok status and enrolled agent count'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like trmm_agents or trmm_summary.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Among siblings there are many health-check tools (e.g., langfuse_health, ragflow_health, mesh_health), but no explicit comparison or exclusion criteria is given. The purpose is clear but the usage context is left entirely to inference.

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