octo_health_check

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states the core activity (checking API availability) but does not clarify what the output indicates (e.g., success/failure format) or whether any side effects exist. For a simple health check, this is adequate but minimal.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences that state the purpose and provide a usage directive. Every word earns its place, with no unnecessary detail.

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?

The tool is simple with no parameters and no output schema, so the description is largely sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly. It could be enhanced by specifying what 'availability' means (e.g., returns a boolean or throws an error), but the current level is adequate for a connectivity check.

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 the description does not need to elaborate on parameter semantics. The schema already covers everything with 100% coverage, and a baseline of 4 is appropriate for a no-parameter tool.

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's purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Check Octo Browser API availability.' It is distinct from all sibling tools, which focus on profiles or browser automation, none of which are connectivity checks.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Call this first to verify connectivity.' This clearly tells the agent when to use this tool relative to other operations, even though it doesn't name alternatives, because the role of a health check is unique and this instruction is unambiguous.

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