archery_health

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds transparency by explicitly stating 'does not perform login' (no authentication side effect) and that it returns the version. This is useful, though it does not mention other potential behavioral aspects like read-only nature or error handling, but the simplicity of a health check makes this sufficient.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action verb '检查', and includes only essential information: what it does and what it doesn't do. There is zero verbosity 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 zero-parameter health check with an output schema, the description fully covers purpose, non-login behavior, and expected return (version). The sibling tool names provide additional context, and the output schema handles return structure. No significant gaps exist.

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, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description clarifies the tool's function, which indirectly confirms there are no inputs to worry about. With 0 params, baseline is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter-specific details.

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 ('检查' / check) and clearly states the resource (Archery accessibility) and expected output (version). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like archery_login_status by explicitly focusing on connectivity and version rather than login status.

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 provides a clear context for use: checking accessibility and version. It includes an explicit 'does not perform login' exclusion, which helps differentiate it from login-related tools. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or give positive when-to-use scenarios beyond the inherent purpose.

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