Runtime health snapshot

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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description adds real behavioral value by disclosing the verdict enum values (healthy/degraded/failing/no-data), the retention window, and that some numbers carry qualifying notes. It does not describe latency, cost, or staleness, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the one-line value proposition and then the return contents plus the routing directive. Every clause earns its place with no repetition.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must convey the return shape, and it does so well (verdict, five summaries, event ids, retention, qualifiers). With annotations covering safety and a zero-param contract, this is nearly complete; it could note whether data is app-scoped versus session-scoped but that is minor.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to clarify beyond a no-arg call, though the description could note that no input is required at all.

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 purpose ('is this app healthy right now') and enumerates exactly what it returns (verdict, exception/network/frame/log/memory summaries, retention window, qualifiers). It explicitly distinguishes itself from six sibling get_* tools, so an agent can route without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly says 'Call this FIRST instead of calling six get_* tools,' which is a direct when-to-use directive with named alternatives. That is exactly the routing guidance the sibling-heavy list (get_logs, get_exceptions, get_frames, get_network, get_memory, runtime_status) needs.

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