cb_health

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds value by naming exactly what is probed (CDP endpoint, app version, renderer bridge, device count), confirming it is a diagnostic probe rather than a mutation.

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 short sentences, zero waste, with the core checks front-loaded and the 'call first' directive appended where it is easy to act on.

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 carries the return-value burden; it lists the facets checked but does not describe the result shape (e.g., pass/fail vs. values). For a simple parameterless diagnostic this is nearly sufficient but leaves a small gap in what the response looks like.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. Schema coverage is 100% and empty, consistent with the description.

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 verb (Check) and resource (CyberBrick app health) and enumerates the concrete checks: CDP endpoint live, app version, renderer bridge access, device count. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling diagnostic tools like app_logs or device_status.

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?

"Call this first" gives explicit sequencing guidance for an agent about to interact with the CyberBrick app. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use conditions, but the entry-point framing is clear context.

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