bx24_health

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool verifies connectivity, credentials, and response time, and mentions the REST versions involved. As a no-parameter health check, this is sufficient behavioral transparency, though it does not describe the exact response format.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. The bilingual RU/EN aliases are useful for matching varied user intent without adding verbosity.

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?

For a no-parameter health-check tool, the description provides enough context for an agent to invoke it correctly. It does not detail the return structure, but the absence of an output schema and parameters lowers the need for that detail.

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 the schema is empty, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The baseline of 4 applies because there is nothing for the description to compensate for.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'verify API connectivity, credentials, and measure response time.' It clearly differentiates this health-check tool from all the CRM, task, and communication sibling tools, which operate on specific Bitrix24 entities.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: to check connection, API status, credentials, or ping. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it, but the diagnostic intent is unambiguous and no alternative tool is a plausible substitute.

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