gatekeeper_get_container_health

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds little beyond saying it retrieves health/running state, but it does not contradict the annotations and there are no hidden side effects to disclose.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant details. It is appropriately concise for a simple read operation, though the brevity contributes to some of the semantic gaps noted in other dimensions.

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?

The operation is simple and the annotations cover side effects and safety, so the description is minimally adequate. However, there is no output schema and no mention of what the health response contains, and the overlapping siblings make selection less certain. More context about return values or distinctions from `get_container_status` would improve 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for the single `name` parameter, and the description does not explicitly define it as a container name, ID, or label. The meaning is inferable from the tool name and context, but the description fails to compensate for the schema gap, especially given the low coverage.

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 uses a clear verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('container health/running state'). It is not a tautology and conveys the operation well. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like `get_container_status` or `gatekeeper_get_container`, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as `get_container_status` or `gatekeeper_list_containers`. No exclusions, conditions, or comparison context are provided, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate use case.

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