swsd_health_check

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by disclosing the specific error behavior: returns ok=true on success, and on failure explains error types (401=bad token, 403=insufficient permission, network error=unreachable). This goes beyond the annotations, giving agents actionable diagnostics. It also mentions 'minimal request,' implying lightweight execution. No contradiction with annotations; readOnlyHint aligns with the verification/read nature.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. The first sentence states the action and outcome; the second details the return contract. Every word earns its place—no filler, no repetition of annotations, and no tangential details. It is appropriately concise for a simple health check tool.

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-parameter tool with a straightforward purpose, the description covers all needed context: what it does, what success returns (ok=true), and what failure returns (detailed error strings). The output schema presence means the description doesn't need to enumerate all fields, and it already explains the key return semantics. Nothing an agent needs to invoke and interpret this tool correctly is missing.

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, and schema coverage is 100% (vacuous). The baseline for tools with no parameters is 4, and the description correctly avoids pretending to add parameter semantics. It does not mislead about arguments because none exist. There is nothing further the description could add about parameters, so a score of 4 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 states a specific purpose: 'Verify connectivity and authentication to SWSD by making a minimal request.' This clearly identifies the verb (verify), resource (SWSD connectivity/auth), and scope. It distinguishes itself from siblings like swsd_get_server_info or swsd_get_me, which serve other roles. The phrasing is unambiguous and immediately conveys what the tool does.

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 usage as a connectivity/auth pre-check, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or when not to. For instance, it never says 'use this before other SWSD calls' or 'use this only for troubleshooting connection.' The context is clear enough to infer its purpose, but explicit guidance on when to invoke it (e.g., before a batch of operations) is missing. Thus, the usage is implied rather than explicitly guided.

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