gemini_health

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds valuable context beyond that: it enumerates the specific live checks performed (executable, authentication, model listing, generation) and notes that unknown states are returned as null. It stops short of describing latency, auth requirements, or cost, but for a read-only probe this is informative.

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 short sentences with no wasted words, and the core purpose is front-loaded. The second sentence ('Unknown states are null') is a useful clarification but is terse to the point of being slightly cryptic. Still, the overall structure is efficient.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description covers what the probe checks and one aspect of return behavior (null for unknowns). However, it does not describe the shape of the result (e.g., whether it returns an object with fields for each check or a single status), which would help an agent interpret the response. Adequate but with a clear gap.

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 no parameter semantics to explain. The description appropriately does not waste space on nonexistent inputs, and the schema is empty. Baseline 4 is appropriate for a zero-parameter tool.

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 names a specific action ('Explicit live provider probe') and enumerates what it checks: executable presence, authentication, model listing, and generation readiness. This distinguishes it from the sibling tools, which all perform agent operations rather than health checks. The only weakness is the compressed jargon 'READY generation,' which is less immediately clear than the rest.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites or typical scenarios (e.g., before spawning agents, when diagnosing failures). The name 'gemini_health' implies a health check, but the description itself does not state when an agent should call it.

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