shell__healthz

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It states that the tool verifies bash presence and returns JSON status, which implies a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly confirm no side effects or disclose any potential edge cases (e.g., timeout, exit codes), leaving some ambiguity.

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?

Two sentences with a clear structure: a one-line summary followed by a @remarks and @param. No filler; every sentence adds value.

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 adequately states what it checks and the return type ('JSON status'). However, it does not detail the structure of the JSON or the exact meaning of 'basic runtime' beyond bash presence, leaving a small gap in completeness.

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 0%, but the description fully compensates with the @param line: 'Optional response mode: content (default) or structuredContent.' This explains the parameter's meaning and default, which the schema lacks entirely.

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?

Description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Check whether shell bundle basic runtime is available' and further specifies it verifies 'bash command presence'. This distinguishes it from sibling healthz tools (ffmpeg, ytdlp, etc.) by scoping to the shell bundle.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the name and purpose imply it is the health check for the shell bundle. Usage context is implied but not elaborated, such as when you need to verify shell capabilities before running scripts.

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