health_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description's statement 'List available health graphs' aligns with a read-only listing operation. However, the description does not add behavioral details such as pagination behavior, default ordering, or what constitutes 'available'. No contradiction with annotations.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 existence of an output schema (which would describe return values), the description is likely sufficient to inform the agent about the tool's general purpose. However, it could be improved by adding context about the typical use case (e.g., 'to get an overview of available health metrics for a device') or the ordering of results.

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% with all three parameters described in the schema. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it does not clarify the format of 'hostname' or the effect of limit/offset). Baseline of 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 clearly states the tool lists available health graphs for a device, using a specific verb ('List') and resource ('health graphs'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'health_by_type' (which filters by type) and 'health_sensor_get' (which retrieves a specific sensor). Scope is well-defined.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'health_by_type' or 'health_sensor_get'). The description does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or exclusions. The agent is left to infer usage context from the name alone.

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