antenna_server_health

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It mentions that the tool reports workspace configuration, optional backend availability, and execution gate, which gives some context about its informational nature. However, it does not disclose side effects, permission requirements, or potential delays, leaving uncertainty about the tool's runtime 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 a single, well-structured sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to explaining the tool's purpose, and the information is front-loaded.

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 description gives the core idea but lacks contextual details such as when to call this health check, what the 'execution gate' implies, and how it relates to the sibling tools. The output schema likely covers return values, but the description alone leaves the tool's role in the workflow underspecified.

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 schema carries no semantic burden. The description is not required to elaborate on parameters, and the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4.

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 ('Report') and identifies three distinct resources (configured workspace, optional backend availability, execution gate). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that create, run, or approve antenna artifacts.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description states what it does but does not suggest when it should be invoked (e.g., before other operations) or when to avoid it.

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