Health check

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It lists what is checked (availability, PATH/bin, sessions) but does not state whether the tool is read-only, whether it connects via SSH, what side effects might occur, or how failures are handled. This is minimal disclosure for a tool that operates on a host.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action verb 'Check', and is perfectly concise. Every word contributes to the tool's purpose, with no fluff or extraneous detail.

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?

The tool is simple (one optional parameter) but has no output schema, so the description should explain what the result looks like. It only lists the checks performed without describing the return format or how to interpret results. Additionally, there's no usage context or prerequisites, making the description incomplete for fully understanding the tool's behavior and output.

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 input schema already provides full coverage of the single parameter 'host', including a clear description and optionality. The tool description adds little beyond mentioning 'for a host', not enriching the parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the 100% schema coverage.

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 tmux availability, PATH/bin resolution, and session listing. The verb 'Check' plus specific resources make the purpose clear, and it distinguishes from siblings like tmux_list_sessions by bundling multiple health-related checks. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from related tools like tmux_server_info.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when a health check is appropriate or how it differs from specific tools like tmux_list_sessions or tmux_state. The title 'Health check' implies a use case, but the description itself gives no explicit usage context or exclusions.

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