sys_health

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 only states 'read-only', which is a minimal safety hint, but it doesn't disclose what the tool returns, whether it queries live data, if there are any side effects (unlikely for read-only), or any other behavioral characteristics. For a zero-parameter tool, this is still insufficient context.

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 extremely concise (4 words), which is efficient, but it is under-specified to the point of being unhelpful. Conciseness should not come at the cost of necessary information. It lacks the substance needed for an agent to use it correctly.

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 enormous sibling list (over 200 tools), the description is grossly incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'system health' encompasses, what format the output takes, or how it differs from similar tools. Without an output schema or annotations, the description is the only source of context, and it provides almost none.

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 description has no parameter semantics to explain. Baseline 4 is appropriate since the schema covers all parameters (none), and no compensation is needed.

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 states a resource ('system health') and a read-only hint, but lacks a clear verb or any indication of what specific information is returned. It does not differentiate itself from siblings like sys_info, show_cpu, or show_status, all of which could plausibly provide health-related data. The phrase is closer to a label than a purpose statement.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the many alternative status/health-related tools in the sibling list. No mention of prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions. An agent has no basis to choose this over sys_info or show_cpu.

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