health_check

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It states the tool returns a simple health status and confirms server running, implying a non-destructive, read-only operation. However, it does not disclose details like response format, potential delays, or authentication requirements, though the output schema exists.

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?

A single, focused sentence that delivers all essential information without unnecessary words. It is well-structured and immediately understandable.

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 simplicity (zero parameters), the presence of an output schema, and the stark contrast with media-processing siblings, the description is complete. It effectively covers the tool's purpose and context without excess.

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, and schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). With no parameters to explain, the description need not add parameter details. The baseline of 4 applies here.

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 function: "Returns a simple health status to confirm the server is running." It uses a specific verb (returns) and resource (health status), and uniquely distinguishes itself from all sibling tools, which are audio/video processing 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 intended use is clearly implied: to check if the server is running. Since no alternative health-check tools exist among siblings, explicit exclusions are unnecessary. The description makes it obvious when this tool should be invoked versus any media-processing tool.

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