Health Check

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, indicating a safe, idempotent operation. The description adds useful behavioral context: 'Re-auth happens automatically via Kerberos if the session expired.' This goes beyond the annotations and provides insight into session management, which is valuable for the agent.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences in total, front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every sentence adds value—the first states the function, the second provides usage context and an important behavioral detail. No filler or redundant text.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (zero parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers the purpose, usage, and an important behavioral trait (auto re-auth). There is no missing info that would impede an agent from selecting or invoking the tool correctly.

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 there is no parameter info to explain. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools. The description does not need to describe parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (vacuously).

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 function: 'Test Zuul API connectivity and auth status.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like list/get operations. The title 'Health Check' also reinforces the purpose, making it unambiguous.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: 'Use this to verify the server is reachable.' This is sufficient for a health check tool, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives. However, given the unique purpose and context signals, no exclusions are necessary.

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