health_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool returns, which implies a read-only diagnostic action, but it does not explicitly say it is non-mutating, whether it triggers any refresh, or what failure behavior looks like. The listed outputs provide some transparency but not complete 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 compact sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose and enumerates its outputs. There is no redundant wording 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?

For a no-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it names the categories of returned information and implies a health-check role. It could be improved by stating when to run it relative to sibling tools, but the low complexity keeps the gap small.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics because there are none; the described outputs are the relevant payload.

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 returns health-check information: data sources, row/column counts, required columns, and MCP tool count. The specific output list differentiates it from sibling tools like list_columns or get_schema, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus siblings such as list_sources, get_schema, or data_insights. An agent would have to infer from the name and output list that this is a diagnostic/verification tool, but no explicit context or exclusions are given.

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