t2000_health

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the tool is a read operation (check) and enumerates the specific data points returned. However, it does not address data freshness or whether it reflects current state. Overall, it provides adequate transparency for a simple health check.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences, with the first sentence front-loading the core purpose and the second expanding on output details. Every word serves a clear function, with no redundancy or tangents.

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 (no parameters, no output schema), the description fully covers what the agent needs: it explains the health factor metric, its threshold for liquidation, and the additional outputs. No missing information for effective use.

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 description coverage is 100% (since no parameters exist). Per guidelines, baseline score is 4. The description adds no parameter information because none is needed; it focuses on output instead.

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 the agent's health factor, explains its significance (below 1.0 risks liquidation), and lists additional information returned (supplied, borrowed, max borrow, liquidation threshold). This distinctly sets it apart from sibling tools which handle other operations like borrowing or sending.

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 use for assessing liquidation risk but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusion criteria or alternative tool names are provided, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool's purpose alone.

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