health_check

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions checking API connectivity but doesn't elaborate on what 'working' entails (e.g., response time, status codes), potential side effects, error handling, or authentication requirements. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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, clear sentence: 'Check if N Lobby API connection is working'. It is front-loaded with the core action, wastes no words, and efficiently communicates the essential function without unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema) and lack of annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but omits details like expected output format, error conditions, or integration with sibling tools. For a basic connectivity check, this is passable but leaves room for improvement in contextual guidance.

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 has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there's no need for parameter details in the description. The baseline for this scenario is 4, as the description appropriately avoids redundant information while clearly stating the tool's purpose without parameter clutter.

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's purpose: 'Check if N Lobby API connection is working'. It specifies the action ('Check') and the target ('N Lobby API connection'), making the intent unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'debug_connection' or 'verify_authentication', which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'debug_connection', 'test_calendar_endpoints', and 'verify_authentication', there's no indication of specific contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions for 'health_check'. This lack of comparative guidance limits its utility for an AI agent.

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