check_health

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does describe the health metrics checked, which is useful, but it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, whether it could be expensive, or any failure/edge-case behavior.

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 brief, front-loaded with the purpose, and then cleanly lists the argument. Every sentence contributes useful information with no filler.

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?

This is a simple tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, so the description is largely sufficient for invoking it. It covers the action and the metrics returned, though it lacks explicit usage guidance and behavioral caveats that would make it fully self-contained.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It does: connection_name is described as the name of the database connection with its default value. This adds meaningful semantic context beyond the bare schema type and default.

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 checks database health and enumerates specific metrics: latency, table count, row count, and largest tables. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_tables or query, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use check_health versus siblings such as list_databases, get_table_info, or diagnose_connection. The phrase 'database health' implies a use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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