health_check

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the categories of information returned (health, version, capabilities) but does not state side effects (if any), response format, or whether the check is read-only. This is a sparse disclosure for a tool with no annotations.

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 and front-loaded, with no filler words. It uses a compact noun phrase to convey the essential scope. However, it is somewhat under-specified, which slightly reduces the appropriateness of its size—it could be a full sentence without losing conciseness.

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 absence of annotations, output schema, and parameters, the description needs to sufficiently explain return values. It lists the major categories (health, version, capabilities) but does not describe the structure or detail of the response. This is adequate for a simple health-check tool but leaves gaps about what 'capabilities' includes and how results are presented.

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 input schema is empty. Per rubric, 0 params earns a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed since there are no parameters to define.

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 'Server health, version, and capabilities' clearly identifies the tool's scope as a resource (server) and the kinds of information it provides (health, version, capabilities). It is distinct from sibling tools like sensitivity_analysis and run_scenario, which focus on scenario modeling. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'check' or 'retrieve', making it slightly less direct than ideal.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It neither states typical use cases nor mentions any exclusions or conditions. With siblings focused on different tasks, some usage context would help, but none is given.

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