health_check

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what is checked (wallet config, address derivation, API connectivity) but doesn't describe how the check is performed, what the output looks like (e.g., success/failure status, error messages), or any side effects (e.g., whether it logs data or affects server state). For a diagnostic tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Check server health') and lists the three key aspects without unnecessary words. Every part earns its place by specifying what is checked, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (simple diagnostic with 0 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and scope but lacks details on behavior, output format, and usage context. For a health check tool, more information on what constitutes 'health' (e.g., thresholds, response format) would improve completeness, but it meets the baseline for a basic tool.

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 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as it avoids redundancy and focuses on the tool's purpose, though it doesn't explicitly state the lack of parameters, which could be a minor gap.

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 as checking server health across three specific aspects: wallet config, address derivation, and API connectivity. It uses the verb 'check' with the resource 'server health' and provides concrete sub-components. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools (like get_balance or get_fee_estimate which might also involve connectivity checks), so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., when server health is suspect), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like get_balance (which might also test connectivity). The context is implied (checking health) but lacks explicit usage instructions.

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