health_check

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently states that the tool 'Makes a minimal test request to the Sonar API,' indicating a low-impact, non-destructive operation. It does not explicitly mention 'read-only' or potential side effects, but the description is clear about the main behavior.

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 two concise sentences that front-load the purpose and include only essential details. Every sentence adds value, with no filler or redundant information.

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 tool is simple with no parameters and no output schema. The description covers the purpose (connectivity and key verification) and the mechanism (minimal request to Sonar API), which is sufficient for an agent to invoke it 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 and an empty input schema. According to the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate for 0 parameters, and the description does not need to add parameter semantics because there are none.

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 purpose: 'Test API connectivity and verify the configured PERPLEXITY_API_KEY is valid and working.' It uses a specific verb ('test') and resource (connectivity/key), and mentions the underlying Sonar API, distinguishing it from sibling tools like api_key_generate or list_models.

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 a clear use case for when to call the tool (verifying connectivity and key validity), giving the agent context to decide when it is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of an explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use statement.

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