stack_health

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. The verb 'probe' implies a non-destructive, likely read-only network check across services, and the output schema documents the return shape, but the description discloses nothing about network requests, auth requirements, timeouts, or what happens on partial failure.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb first and the targets listed; zero filler. It is terse to the point of omitting any context, but nothing is wasted.

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?

With zero parameters and an output schema documenting the return values, the description does not need to explain results. However, it omits why an agent would invoke a whole-stack probe instead of the granular sibling tools, leaving a real contextual gap.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies per the rules; no parameter-level meaning is needed.

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?

States a specific verb ('Probe') and enumerates the exact resources targeted (MediaMTX, Node-RED Admin, TAK Marti, infra-TAK console), letting an agent identify it as a composite stack check versus the per-service siblings like mediamtx_info or nodered_info. It does not explicitly say what 'probe' produces (a health/status aggregate), so it falls short of the 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives, even though obvious candidates exist (mediamtx_info, nodered_info, docker_ps for individual services). The agent must infer that this tool exists to check the whole stack at once rather than a single component.

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