Run Database Health Check

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it aggregates multiple sources into a single call, includes a 24-hour window for cron failures, and signals that the result is a summary rather than a deep dive. This is exactly the supplementary context the description should provide.

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, no filler. The purpose and scope are front-loaded, and the caveat about deep dives is placed at the end. Every clause earns its place; ideal conciseness.

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 tool has an output schema (not shown, but indicated), so return-value details are redundant in the description. It has no required parameters, and the description fully covers what the health check inspects and its limitations. An agent can decide to invoke it correctly with no ambiguity.

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?

Both parameters (profile and magentoRoot) are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage), so the schema carries the semantic weight. The description does not add parameter-level detail, but it doesn't need to; the baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema is complete.

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 clearly states a specific verb+resource ('run health check') and enumerates the concrete components: connection, edition detection, indexer issues, failed crons (24h), queue backlog summary. It also differentiates from siblings by framing itself as a 'single-call snapshot' and explicitly noting it does not replace individual diagnostic tools.

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 explicitly provides a when-not instruction: 'Does NOT replace individual diagnostic tools for deep dives.' This implies the tool is for quick overviews and directs the agent toward sibling tools for detailed investigation. It does not name specific alternative tools, but the exclusion is clear and actionable.

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