get_server_health

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It indicates a non-mutating 'Report' action and introduces the 'read-only safety boundaries' concept, but it doesn't clarify what those boundaries are, whether any side effects exist, or what the output looks like. It provides minimal but not misleading behavioral context.

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 sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and resource. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter tool.

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 simple no-parameter health check, the description captures the main purpose, but it doesn't define what 'health' or 'read-only safety boundaries' mean or describe the return value, since no output schema exists. The ambiguity around 'safety boundaries' leaves meaningful gaps for an agent deciding whether this tool answers its question.

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 the schema is complete and the baseline of 4 applies. The description doesn't need to add parameter meaning, and no information is missing.

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 ('Report') and a clear resource ('server health'), which distinguishes it at a high level from sibling tools like get_job_health and check_gateway_health. The phrase 'read-only safety boundaries' adds scope but is ambiguous, so it doesn't fully clarify what exactly is reported.

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 is given on when to choose this tool over siblings such as get_job_health, check_gateway_health, or check_delivery_failures. The context implies server-level health checks, but there are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or alternative routing.

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