health_check

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses the three checks performed (token present, writes enabled, identity), which is useful and suggests a read-only diagnostic. However, it does not clarify whether this performs live API calls, whether it can fail partially, or what side effects if any exist.

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 compact sentence with no filler. It front-loads the tool's purpose and enumerates the exact diagnostic dimensions, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

With no parameters and an output schema present, the description is largely complete: it names the three key areas the diagnostic checks. A minor gap is that it does not state whether the check is performed live against an external API or purely reading local configuration, but this is not critical for a health-check tool with a rich output schema.

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 schema coverage is 100% by vacuity, so there is no missing parameter documentation. Per the rubric, zero-parameter tools get a baseline of 4, and the description adds relevant context about what the health check inspects.

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 states this is a configuration diagnostic that verifies token presence, write permissions, and identity. This is a clear and specific purpose that goes beyond the tool name, and it helps differentiate 'health_check' from focused tools like token_info or token_permissions by positioning it as a combined readiness check.

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?

There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as token_info, token_permissions, or account_summary. The word 'Diagnostic' implies a preflight or setup-verification use case, but the description does not state conditions, exclusions, or preferred contexts.

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