Personal OS health

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds context by reassuring that no sensitive data is exposed and that the check is for the authenticated API. This goes beyond the annotations and provides useful behavioral insight.

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, information-dense sentence with no redundancy. It front-loads the primary action and adds a concise privacy qualifier. Every word 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 health-check tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and a key behavioral guarantee. It does not detail the response format, but that is arguably unnecessary for such a simple tool. The description is sufficient given the tool's simplicity and rich annotations.

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 trivially 100%. With no parameters to document, the baseline is 4 per the guidelines. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and it does not attempt to.

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 ('check') and resource ('API availability'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It is unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools, which are all CRUD operations on entities. The phrase 'without exposing sensitive data' further clarifies the safety scope.

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 description implies this tool is used to verify API availability, likely before other operations, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided. The intended usage is inferable from the context but not explicitly stated.

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