get_health

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

No annotations are present, so the description must convey side effects. 'Check' clearly indicates a read-only, non-destructive operation, making the behavior transparent enough for a health check.

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 extremely concise, using two sentences to state the purpose and return value without any unnecessary words or repetition.

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, the description provides sufficient context: it states what is checked (instance health and version) and what is returned (JSON with that info). No additional context is needed for the single parameter.

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 provides only the parameter name 'connection_name' with no description. The tool description does not explain the parameter further, but the meaning is reasonably self-evident in the context of Grafana connections. Schema coverage is low, yet the parameter is simple.

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 the verb 'Check' with the specific object 'Grafana instance health and version information', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_datasource_health which targets a datasource.

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 usage for checking overall instance health but does not provide explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as get_datasource_health or when not to use it. Adequate but minimal.

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