get_server_health

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. 'Report' implies a read-only operation, and the listed items indicate the kind of data returned. However, it does not explicitly state side-effect-freedom, permission needs, or any special behavior (e.g., whether 'safety boundaries' are computed or simply read). This is adequate but not rich.

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 sentence packs three distinct aspects that are reported, with no filler or repetition. The verb 'Report' is front-loaded, making the tool's purpose immediately clear. Every phrase earns its place.

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 read-only health tool, the description covers the main output areas, and the lack of parameters means the call surface is trivial. However, without an output schema or annotations, some detail about the exact shape or semantics of 'source-audit health' and 'non-publishing safety boundaries' would improve completeness. Still, the description is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly and interpret the broad categories.

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 schema to document. The description adds value by explaining what the tool reports (source-audit health, storage root, safety boundaries), giving context rather than just the tool name. This aligns with the baseline expectation for a parameterless tool.

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 'Report' with concrete resources: source-audit health, storage root, and non-publishing safety boundaries. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_source_audit or register_source, which imply different actions. However, the terms 'health' and 'non-publishing safety boundaries' are somewhat domain-specific and could be clearer.

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 about when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. The context signal of 0 parameters and a health-report purpose implies it might be a preliminary check, but the description itself provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use direction. An agent is left to infer its role.

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