get_server_health

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

With no annotations, the description must fully convey behavioral traits. 'Report' weakly implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, whether authentication is needed, or what 'endpoint basics' includes in practice. This leaves important behavior under-specified.

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, front-loaded sentence that names the core purpose immediately. Every word adds meaning and there is no repetition or filler.

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?

The tool is simple (no parameters, no output schema), so a short description is partly acceptable. However, because there is no output schema, the description should clarify what kind of health information and 'endpoint basics' are returned. The lack of distinction from sibling tools also leaves the overall context incomplete.

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 and the schema coverage is effectively complete, so there is no parameter documentation burden for the description to carry. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameters exist and the description adds no parameter-related confusion.

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 action ('Report') and a clear resource scope: local server health, auth mode, and endpoint basics. It is understandable and distinguishes itself as a broad health/status aggregate, though 'endpoint basics' is somewhat vague and could overlap with sibling tools like get_auth_mode and get_endpoint_config.

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 explicit guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus the more specific sibling tools get_auth_mode and get_endpoint_config. Because this tool appears to aggregate those areas of information, an agent could mis-select it or the siblings without clearer direction.

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