quipu_health

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious semantics beyond them: a healthy result is a positive signal only and does not prove complete graph coverage, which prevents an agent from over-trusting the response.

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, front-loaded with the action and followed by the one caveat that actually changes interpretation. No filler, no restatement of the name or title.

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 no-parameter liveness probe with no output schema, the description covers the essential unknown – how much a success actually proves. It stops slightly short of indicating what the health payload conveys, but that gap is minor at this complexity.

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, so the schema baseline is 4. There is nothing parameter-wise the description could usefully add, and it does not waste space restating the empty input.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ("Read server health") and adds the scope qualifier that it is a liveness control rather than a completeness check. It is distinguishable from data-returning siblings such as quipu_stats or quipu_version by the words "positive liveness control," though it does not name those siblings explicitly.

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?

"As a positive liveness control" implies the when-to-use case, and the caveat hints at when not to rely on it, but no concrete alternative (e.g. quipu_stats for coverage, quipu_version for build info) is named. An agent must infer which sibling to reach for when it needs more than a liveness signal.

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