ue5_check_health

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only operation ('check health', 'confirm reachable') and specifies the return structure, but does not explicitly state that it makes no modifications, nor does it mention failure modes or error handling. This is acceptable for a health check but leaves some behavioral aspects implicit.

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 concise sentences (plus a bilingual translation) that front-load the purpose and return data. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant information.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, what it returns, and when to call it. It could optionally mention behavior if the editor is unreachable, but the description is adequate for its 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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema is fully covered, so the description does not need to elaborate on parameter meanings. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description adds no unnecessary parameter details.

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 checks bridge/editor health and specifies the exact data returned: engine version, project name, and loaded bridge API list. It also positions itself as the first call before any write operation, distinguishing it from diagnostic tools like ue5_run_diagnostics.

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?

Explicitly instructs to call this first to confirm editor reachability before write operations, providing clear when-to-use guidance. However, it does not mention any alternative tools (e.g., ue5_run_diagnostics) or when not to use it, so it lacks explicit exclusion criteria.

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