get_server_health

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Report' weakly implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state that it makes no changes, whether authentication is required, what happens on failure, or what the report contains beyond vague category names.

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 concise sentence with the main action front-loaded. It contains no filler, though the phrase 'non-publishing safety boundaries' is jargon-heavy and slightly undermines clarity.

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?

With no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides a minimal but not fully complete picture. It lists three report areas but does not clarify what 'archive health' means, how results are returned, or what 'non-publishing safety boundaries' refers to, leaving an agent to guess.

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 is no parameter burden to carry. The baseline of 4 applies, and the description correctly omits parameter details that do not exist.

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 clear verb, 'Report', and names the target resource: archive health, storage root, and non-publishing safety boundaries. It is distinct from the sibling content-management tools, though 'non-publishing safety boundaries' is somewhat opaque and would benefit from elaboration.

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 verb 'Report' and the health-related subject imply this tool is for checking server/archive status, but there is no explicit statement of when to use it versus alternatives, nor any exclusions. Usage context is only inferred, not stated.

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