phoenix_recovery_health

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

Adding to annotations, the description clarifies scope (includes snapshot, chain, intelligence, compliance) and reaffirms read-only nature. This context goes beyond the annotations' boolean hints by specifying what aspects are assessed.

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?

Two concise sentences; front-loaded with the core purpose, then lists assessed areas. No wasted words.

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 no output schema, the description gives a solid overview of what is assessed. However, it does not specify the format or structure of the output (e.g., JSON, pass/fail), which could be helpful for an agent parsing results. Slightly incomplete but still 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?

No parameters exist (schema coverage 100%), so the baseline of 4 applies. The description doesn't need to add parameter details beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Assess') and resource ('Phoenix recovery readiness'), and lists key components (snapshot availability, chain integrity, etc.). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on overall readiness rather than individual checks like phoenix_snapshot.

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?

Explicitly states 'Classification: INFORMATIONAL — read-only assessment', which guides when to use (safe, non-destructive info). No explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the classification implies suitable for informational queries without side effects.

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