ocr_system_health

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

The verb 'Report' implies a read-only operation, which is a meaningful behavioral clue in the absence of annotations. However, it does not disclose details such as whether this tool performs network calls, requires privileges, has side effects, or what the response structure looks like. The description carries the full burden here but only partially meets it.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the main verb and lists the three report categories. No redundant words, no filler. Every element contributes to understanding.

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?

The description is compact but sufficient for a zero-parameter tool. It identifies the exact statuses reported. The only gap is that no output schema exists, so the description could have added a hint about the return format, but for a simple health check the provided information is largely 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?

The input schema is empty. With zero parameters, the description does not need to explain parameter meanings. The baseline for handling 0 params is 4, and the description does not introduce any confusion.

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 ('Report') and names three concrete resources: database status, SMB status, and queue depth. This clearly distinguishes the tool from data-manipulation siblings like ocr_extract_invoice or ocr_get_record, and leaves no ambiguity about its function.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no context on when a health check is appropriate. It merely states what the tool reports, leaving the agent to infer when to invoke it.

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