healthcheck

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. The verb 'report' implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state safety, side effects, permissions, or other behavioral traits. The one-liner adds minimal transparency beyond the basic action.

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 that leads with the action 'Report' and clearly states the resources. It is concise with no unnecessary information, earning a high score for efficiency.

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?

Despite having no parameters and an output schema, the description leaves gaps in usage guidelines and behavioral transparency. It provides the essential purpose but lacks guidance on when to use the tool or what behavioral impacts it might have, making it minimally adequate but not comprehensive.

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 there is nothing to describe. The baseline of 4 applies, and the description does not need to add parameter details. The empty schema already confirms the lack of parameters.

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 the tool's function with a specific verb 'report' and the resource 'installed package identity and canary transport profile.' It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool describe_deployment by focusing on identity and canary transport rather than deployment details.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus describe_deployment or any other alternative. It lacks context about appropriate scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, providing no decision-making support.

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