wlo_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 explains what the tool checks (reachability/responding) and what it returns (latency, root nodeId, status flag), which is sufficient for a simple health-check operation. It does not delve into error handling or auth, but for this tool type, the disclosed behavior is adequate.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by return-value details and a practical use case. Every sentence contributes distinct value with no redundancy or filler.

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?

This is a low-complexity tool with no parameters and no output schema, so the description fully covers the essentials: what it does, what it returns, and when to use it. It is complete and self-contained, with no critical missing information.

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 baseline is 4. The description correctly omits parameter details, as there is nothing to document. The schema is empty and consistent, requiring no additional explanation.

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 ('Probe') and resource ('WLO repository API') to clearly define the tool's purpose as a health check. This distinguishes it from sibling search and retrieval tools, which focus on querying content rather than checking service availability.

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 on when to use this tool: to differentiate service outages from empty search results, citing a concrete use case ('callers e.g. chatbots'). It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the guidance is strong enough for appropriate selection.

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