get_health

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the transparency burden. It discloses that it uses parallel async API calls for efficiency and that the response includes a full list of applications/adapters. This adds behavioral context beyond a simple read operation, though it stops short of explaining exact response structure (output schema exists) or potential side effects (none are expected).

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 opener, context, implementation note, and a distinct 'Note' for the application/adapter list. It is somewhat verbose with phrases like 'providing optimal performance for comprehensive health monitoring,' but overall every sentence contributes meaning and the structure aids readability.

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 zero-parameter health check with an output schema present, the description is complete. It explains the purpose, the parallel execution approach, and explicitly calls out that application/adapter lists are included. There are no significant gaps in context or usage understanding.

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 description need not explain parameter meanings. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description does not add any param-specific information because none is needed.

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 and resource ('Get comprehensive health information from Itential Platform') and clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting that it includes a complete list of applications and adapters as part of the health data. This clearly separates it from more specific tools like get_applications or get_adapters.

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 that this tool is for system health monitoring, performance visibility, and troubleshooting. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the purpose is well implied and distinct from sibling tools that target specific resources.

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