tools_health

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the specific behavior of checking all model APIs and returning readiness, but does not go beyond that to mention potential side effects, requirements, or response details.

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 succinct sentence that fully conveys the tool's purpose and return value. No wasted words.

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 tool with no output schema, the description is sufficient. It states what it does and what it returns. Slight room to mention interpretation of results (e.g., what 'ready' means) but not necessary given the annotations.

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 no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter-level detail.

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 clearly states the tool checks the availability status of all model APIs and returns readiness. The verb 'check' plus resource 'all model APIs' is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like vision_analyze, vision_chat, and audio_transcribe.

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?

Usage context is implied: this is a health check tool, so it would be used to verify model availability before other operations. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use it or provide exclusions or alternative guidance.

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