health_check

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

The description discloses that the tool returns health status information including Langfuse tracing status. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it sufficiently describes the read-only nature of the operation. It does not mention side effects because there are none expected.

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 two sentences long with no redundant information. Every word adds value, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 health check with no parameters and an existing output schema, the description is complete. It provides all necessary context without needing to explain return values or additional details.

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?

There are no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add anything beyond the schema, which already covers 100%.

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 clearly states the tool checks server health status. It uses a specific verb and resource, and the purpose distinguishes it from sibling tools which are focused on admin, search, and video operations.

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 context for using this tool is clear: to check health status. While no alternatives or when-not-to-use are explicitly mentioned, the simplicity and zero parameters make it self-explanatory. A slightly lower score because there is no mention of alternatives, but it remains adequate.

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