get_infrastructure_health

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It explains the summary rollup, key-by-component-name result organization, per-component information (e.g., reachability, load, tunnel counts), and a meaningful error-handling behavior: a failed component returns an error string instead of failing the whole call. This goes well beyond a generic 'get health' statement and prepares the agent for partial-failure scenarios.

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 front-loaded with the purpose, uses a tight bulleted list for the component breakdown, and closes with a concise behavioral note. Every sentence and bullet adds information the agent needs; there is no filler, repetition, or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 single-optional-parameter read-only health tool with an output schema available, the description covers the important decision-relevant details: what components exist, what each returns, how results are keyed, and how component failures behave. The schema handles the default value and allowed enums, so nothing critical is missing for invoking the tool correctly.

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 already documents the components parameter with an enum and 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining what each component value actually represents, such as connection_servers returning 'reachability, load, and tunnel counts' and farms returning 'RDS farm health and server capacity.' This semantic detail is not in the schema, so the parameter meaning is usefully enriched.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get health and status across Horizon infrastructure in a single call.' The bulleted component list makes the aggregate scope concrete and separates this from the per-resource sibling tools like get_connection_server_health and list_gateways. An agent can immediately tell this is a cross-component health rollup, not a single-component lookup.

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 phrase 'in a single call' and the enumeration of multiple component types clearly communicate that this tool is for broad infrastructure health checks. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools or state when to prefer this over get_connection_server_health or the individual list_* tools. The context is clear but exclusions are left to inference.

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