run_safe_command__healthz

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds a meaningful behavior: missing optional trace tools are reported as warnings, not hard failures. This gives insight into how the tool handles partial environments. It does not mention side effects, but the verb 'Check' implies a non-destructive read-only operation. The description adds useful context beyond the bare minimum.

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 concise with no fluff, using clear tags (@remarks, @param). It front-loads the core purpose in one sentence. The @param line is arguably redundant with the schema but still compact. Overall, well-structured and efficient.

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 healthz tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and a key behavioral trait (warnings for missing optional tools). It does not describe the return format, but given the tool's simplicity and the presence of sibling healthz tools, the description is reasonably complete. A more detailed return contract would be helpful but is not essential.

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 fully describes the sole parameter with enum values and a default. The description's @param line simply restates the schema information ('content (default) or structuredContent') without adding new meaning. Since schema coverage is effectively complete for this parameter, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Check') and a specific resource ('run_safe_command runtime dependencies and platform capabilities'). It clearly differentiates this healthz tool from the various sibling healthz tools by scoping it to run_safe_command. This is a precise, non-tautological statement of purpose.

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 implies usage as a health check for run_safe_command, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., other healthz tools) or provide any exclusions. The context is understood but not articulated, so it falls in the 'implied usage' category.

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