health_check

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

The description discloses three behaviors: connection attempt, latency measurement, and uptime history tracking. With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. However, it does not mention side effects, required permissions, or whether the tool is read-only (though implied safe). Adequate but not thorough.

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 three short sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. No redundant phrasing. However, 'Attempts connection, measures latency, tracks uptime history' could be more concise by combining into one sentence.

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?

Given the simple single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers core functionality. However, it omits return format (e.g., boolean, status object), possible errors (server not found, timeout), and whether it modifies state. Adequate for a simple health check but not fully complete.

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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'server_id', with a clear description referencing 'register_server'. The description adds no extra param details, but with full schema coverage, baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'server health' contextually relates to the parameter, raising score to 4.

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 server health, including connection attempt, latency measurement, and uptime tracking. It uses specific verbs ('check', 'attempts', 'measures') and identifies the resource ('server health'). While it distinguishes from siblings like 'check_before_install', it could be more explicit about scope.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., server must be registered) or when not to use it. No sibling comparison is given, leaving the agent to infer context.

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