check_health

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 確認 implies a non-mutating read operation, and the schema hints at per-service detail, but the description itself does not disclose return behavior, side effects, or anything about what '稼働状況' actually reports. It neither contradicts annotations (there are none) nor enriches them.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. The purpose is stated immediately and no word is wasted; for a tool of this simplicity the length is appropriate.

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 one-optional-parameter read-only tool, the definition is nearly adequate. However, there is no output schema and the description gives no indication of the response shape (e.g., overall status, per-service breakdown), leaving the agent to guess what a successful invocation returns. Clear gap, but minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 100%: the single optional 'detailed' parameter is already documented as returning per-service status when true. The description adds no parameter information, so the baseline of 3 applies — the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (確認します) and a specific resource (Saga Event Space APIのシステム稼働状況), clearly defining the tool as a health check for that system. Among the 34 sibling tools, none performs a health check, so an agent can distinguish it without ambiguity.

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 gives no context for when to call this tool — e.g., before dependent operations or when diagnosing failures — and names no alternatives or exclusions. The uniqueness among siblings reduces the need for alternative routing, but zero when-to-use guidance is still provided.

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