health_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the success response (ok=true, latencyMs) and explicitly states what is NOT exposed (host, user, password, version). It does not describe failure behavior, but for a health check with no side effects, this is reasonable.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every word earns its place. It includes a useful disclaimer about sensitive data without any fluff.

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 parameterless health check, the description is almost complete. It states the success condition and output, and the limitation about not exposing credentials. The only gap is the unreachable case, but the tool is simple enough that this does not significantly impair understanding.

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 needs no parameter details. The baseline of 4 applies, and the description adds context about the tool's scope without needing to explain parameter semantics.

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's purpose: 'Report server/database reachability.' It specifies the return values (ok=true, latencyMs) and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling table tools by focusing on connectivity rather than data operations.

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 implies when to use this tool (to check server/database reachability) and clearly, if implicitly, differentiates from the sibling tools. It lacks explicit exclusions or alternative tool references, but the context is unambiguous.

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