get-health-virtual-hosts

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

Annotations already mark the tool as readOnly and openWorld, indicating a safe read with variable output. The description adds that it gets health status but does not elaborate on the format, scope, or potential costs beyond the annotations.

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 that is front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word is necessary, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 description is sufficient for a simple tool with no parameters and annotations. It tells the agent what the tool does. However, it could be more specific about what 'health check status' entails or the expected output format, but given the openWorld hint, this is adequate.

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 has no parameters, so schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter information, which is acceptable since there are none. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'health check status for all virtual hosts'. It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools that target specific resources (e.g., queues, exchanges) or other health-related tools like get-health-alarms.

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 indicates that it retrieves health status for all virtual hosts, implying a broad overview. However, it does not provide when to use this tool versus other health check tools (e.g., get-health-alarms, get-health-certificate-expiration) or mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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