get_datasource_health

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format (JSON string) and the 404 handling behavior (structured 'unsupported' or 'not_found'), but it does not explicitly mention whether the operation is read-only or if any side effects are possible. A health check implies non-mutating behavior, but it is not stated.

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 concise and well-structured. It clearly separates purpose, arguments, and return behavior with no unnecessary information or verbose phrasing.

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?

The description covers the main return behavior, including a specific special case (404). However, it does not mention other potential error conditions, prerequisites (such as needing an existing connection or datasource), or how this relates to the sibling tools. For a simple health-check tool, the provided context is adequate but not fully complete.

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 has 0% description coverage, and the description provides only one-line explanations for each parameter. It clarifies that connection_name is the Grafana connection and datasource_uid is the datasource to probe, but it does not elaborate on expected formats, sources, or validation constraints.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Run the health check') and identifies the target resource ('a specific datasource'). It also names the required parameters, making the core function unambiguous.

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 explains what the tool does but does not explicitly state when to choose it over sibling tools like get_health, list_datasources, or query_prometheus. The context implies it is for probing a specific datasource's health, but no direct comparison or selection guidance is provided.

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