sage_node_health

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it states 'Read-only: this tool signs a local read and changes nothing' and explains the two resolution values and what each means for how the fence clears. This goes well beyond a generic read description and gives the agent the behavioral detail needed to interpret the result.

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 long but front-loaded with the core purpose and trigger, and the subsequent fence-state detail earns its place because it tells the agent what the returned field means and how to act on it. It could be lightly structured with separate sentences for trigger and resolution semantics, but there is no 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?

Despite having no output schema, the description explains the important return fields (which key is held, transaction/nonce, duration, last reconciliation failure, and how the fence can end) and gives the two resolution branches. For a read-only health tool with one optional parameter, this is complete enough for correct invocation and interpretation.

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 schema already fully documents the single parameter timeout_seconds with bounds and default, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds context about the local read being signed, but it does not need to explain the parameter further; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Read this node's health, including its signer-fence state.' It clearly identifies what the tool does and ties it to a precise triggering condition (a write failing with 'Signing key temporarily held'), which separates it from the other sage_* tools.

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?

It explicitly says 'CALL THIS when a write fails with "Signing key temporarily held" (HTTP 503 + Retry-After),' giving a clear, actionable trigger. It does not name an alternative tool or state when not to use it, but the trigger condition is specific enough that an agent can select it correctly.

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