swsd_health_check

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the bar is lower. The description goes beyond them by decoding the outcome surface — ok=true on success and specific error semantics (401 bad token, 403 insufficient permission, network error unreachable) — which is genuinely useful failure-triage context an agent cannot get from annotations alone.

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 tightly written sentences with the primary purpose front-loaded and the return contract immediately after. No filler or repetition of structured fields.

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 zero-param, fully-annotated health probe with an output schema, the description supplies exactly the missing piece — how to interpret success and failure codes. Nothing an agent needs to invoke and reason about the result is absent.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing to document and the description correctly omits any parameter discussion.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Verify connectivity and authentication to SWSD') with the mechanism disclosed (makes a minimal request). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like swsd_get_me or swsd_get_server_info, which fetch data rather than test reachability.

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 implies a diagnostic/preflight use case but never states when to call it versus alternatives (e.g., 'use before other calls when credentials may be stale'). No exclusions or sibling routing are given, so usage is only inferable.

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