get_health

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, indicating safe behavior. The description adds that the tool returns a dictionary with health status, consistent with the annotations. No contradiction, but minimal behavioral disclosure beyond what annotations provide.

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, with a single purpose statement and a brief usage note. Every sentence is informative, and there is no unnecessary content. Front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 tool's simplicity, the description covers the main purpose and return type. An output schema exists, so detailed return structure is not needed. Could mention response format slightly more, but overall complete for a health check tool.

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 and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter-specific details, which is appropriate given the lack of parameters. Baseline for 0 params is 4, but the description is sufficient and clear.

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 verb 'Get system health status', specifies the resource 'Ghostfolio backend service', and explains its utility for verifying server uptime. This distinguishes it from sibling tools, none of which are health-related.

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 explicitly says 'useful to verify if the server is up and running', providing clear when-to-use guidance. However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use, though no sibling tool serves a similar purpose.

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