check_health

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses what is actually checked—provider keys, snapshot directory, and disk—and the verb 'Checks' implies a non-mutating inspection. It does not explicitly state side-effect-free behavior, but nothing in the description suggests modification.

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?

One short sentence communicates the verb, target, and specific scope without any filler. The parenthetical list of checks is compact and informative, making the description easy to scan and parse.

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 parameterless health-check tool with an output schema, this description is complete: it names the exact environmental areas inspected and implies the tool's role. No additional context is needed for an agent to select or invoke it correctly.

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, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The schema is empty and fully covers the input surface, so the description does not need to compensate for missing parameter documentation.

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 ('Checks') and resource ('BoteX environment readiness'), then enumerates the exact components checked: provider keys, snapshot dir, and disk. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle tasks, memory, URLs, or model recommendations.

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 gives clear context: this tool is for verifying whether the BoteX environment is properly set up. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it to alternatives, but its health-check role makes the intended use obvious enough.

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