health

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful scope context ('independently of Channel inventory or application state') but does not describe response format or potential error behavior, though for a zero-parameter health check this is a minor gap.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that states exactly what the tool does and what it does not depend on. Every word contributes value; there is no redundancy 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?

This is a simple zero-parameter health-check tool with read-only, idempotent, non-destructive annotations. The description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it correctly; no additional context is required.

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 zero parameters, so the input schema fully documents all inputs. The description adds no parameter-level detail, which is unnecessary here. Baseline 4 applies due to the absence of parameters.

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 ('Report') and resource ('mechanical backend/service health'), and explicitly distinguishes it from 'Channel inventory or application state'. This clearly separates it from the channel-focused sibling tools like list_channels and get_channel.

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 clearly indicates this tool is for backend/service health checks and not for channel inventory or application state concerns, which implies when it should be used. It doesn't name alternative tools explicitly or state when-not-to-use scenarios, but the context is clear enough.

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