get_health

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. "Return" implies a non-mutating read and the enumerated fields give a sense of the payload, but nothing is said about permissions, rate limits, caching, or whether calling it has any side effects (e.g., session accounting).

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?

A single sentence with zero filler, front-loading the verb and resource before the field list. Every clause maps to a distinct piece of returned information.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description's field enumeration does double duty as an informal return-value summary, which is the right call. It falls short only on behavioral context, which is low-risk for a zero-argument read.

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 schema has zero parameters, which sets the baseline at 4. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate, and it correctly avoids inventing parameter talk.

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?

Uses a specific verb ("Return") with a concrete resource (agent health) and enumerates the payload contents: active policy, platform support, session count. It is clearly distinct from the file/process siblings, though that differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no named alternatives. The diagnostic/status nature of a zero-parameter health call makes the intended usage inferable, but the agent must infer it.

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