pixelcue_health

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety and locality are covered. The description adds one genuinely useful trait beyond that: the service must already be running and is reached over loopback, meaning the tool will not start or provision anything. It does not say what happens when the service is unreachable, which is the main failure mode an agent would want to know.

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 sentence with the action and the prerequisite front-loaded and no filler. Nothing can be trimmed without losing 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?

With no parameters and an output schema that documents the returned version/model data, the description does not need to explain return values. It is nearly complete for such a simple probe; the only missing piece is expected behavior on a down or unreachable service.

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 zero parameters, so the established baseline of 4 applies; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The description does not introduce any phantom inputs.

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?

States a specific verb (read) and specific resources (version and model profiles) from a named service, which is more informative than a bare 'health' label. It does not explicitly contrast with the other PixelCue siblings (pixelcue_keywords, pixelcue_visual_analysis), so the agent must infer the boundary itself.

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 phrase 'already-running loopback PixelCue service' implies a prerequisite and hints this is a preflight/inspection call before real work, but it never states when to call it versus pixelcue_keywords or the doctor/info siblings like stemlab_doctor or thumbmoves_backend_info. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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