system_health_check

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

With no annotations, the description fully bears the burden of disclosure. It explains the behavior: makes a test request to GET /users/me, returns specific fields, and is cached for 60 seconds. It does not mention side effects (none expected), rate limits, or permission requirements, but for a health check, the transparency is adequate.

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 well-structured with a clear main sentence, a bulleted list of returns, caching info, and common use cases. Every sentence is purposeful, and the structure makes it easy to scan.

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 tool with no parameters and a straightforward purpose, the description is complete. It covers the action, the API call, the return values, caching behavior, and typical use cases. No gaps are evident given 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?

There are zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter meaning, but it does add value by describing the return fields. Baseline 4 is appropriate.

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 checks API connectivity and authentication. It uses a specific verb ('check') and resource ('API connectivity and authentication status'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being a diagnostic tool, unlike the many data manipulation tools.

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?

Common use cases are listed (verify token, check API accessibility, get connection status before operations, troubleshoot). This provides context for when to use the tool, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. The guidance is clear but lacks exclusions.

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