health_check

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

The annotations already establish that this is a read-only, non-destructive, closed-world operation. The description adds useful behavioral context by listing the checked subsystems and explaining that code_matches may be null when unknown.

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 short, front-loaded, and free of redundant wording. Every sentence provides relevant diagnostic or output-semantics 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?

For a no-parameter diagnostic tool with an output schema, the description is complete enough: it states what is checked and clarifies the nullable code_matches field. The output schema can carry the remaining return-value details.

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 takes no parameters, so parameter semantics are not applicable; the baseline for zero parameters is 4. There is no additional parameter meaning 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 gives a specific diagnostic verb and enumerates the resources checked: installed revision, deployed release, GPU, memory use, and media/state paths. It is clearly a health/diagnostic tool, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings such as get_settings or job_status.

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 diagnostic purpose implies when to use it, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose health_check versus get_settings or other sibling tools. No exclusions or preconditions are stated.

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