get_infrastructure_health

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: results are keyed by component name, and a failed component surfaces its error as a string instead of failing the whole call — important partial-failure semantics for an aggregator.

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 opening sentence front-loads the capability, and the bulleted component list is easy to scan. It is somewhat long given the component names already appear as schema enum values, but each bullet adds a short gloss that earns its place.

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 an output schema present and annotations covering safety, the description is nearly complete — it explains scope, component coverage, keying, and partial-failure behavior. It omits authentication/rate-limit context, which is a minor gap for a read-only health aggregator.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single 'components' parameter is already well documented with allowed values and the all-components default. The description restates the same component list without adding selection syntax or semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get health and status across Horizon infrastructure') and scopes it as an aggregate check 'in a single call', which implicitly separates it from per-component siblings like get_connection_server_health and list_virtual_centers. The component enumeration further pins down exactly what is covered.

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 'single call' framing and component list imply this is the aggregate overview tool, but the description never states when to prefer it over the narrower per-component health/list tools, nor any prerequisites such as prior authentication. Usage is inferable but not explicit.

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