health

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return shape and that a last error and history may be included, implying a read-only diagnostic. However, it says nothing about permissions, side effects, cost, or whether the probe is triggered or merely reported.

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 front-loaded sentence with the action verb first and no filler. It is efficient, though the trailing clauses about target, error, and history slightly diffuse the core statement.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be enumerated, and all parameters are documented with no required fields. For a read-only diagnostic tool with no annotations, the description is adequate, missing only the when-to-use framing that would fully orient the agent.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (history, runtime, selectors) are already documented in the schema. The description's mention of 'recorded health history' loosely maps to the history flag but adds no syntax, defaults, or semantics beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Return') and resource ('readiness and liveness probe state'), naming the concrete payload fields (probed target, last error, history). It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from neighbors like 'status' or 'doctor'.

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?

No guidance on when to call this versus 'status' or 'doctor', and no conditions or exclusions are stated. The description only says what it returns, leaving the agent to infer the use case.

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