health

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it does deliver the two most important facts: the operation is read-only, and each check returns ok/warn/fail with a reason. It says nothing about cost or latency of fanning out across many subsystems (container, REST, nsdchat, drives), what happens when a subsystem is unreachable, or whether any check has side effects, which matters most for an aggregate probe.

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 sentence that front-loads 'one-call read-only health check' and then enumerates the covered subsystems plus the result contract. The enumeration is dense but every item carries information about coverage; nothing is padding.

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 no output schema, the description must convey the return shape, and it does ('Each check is ok/warn/fail with a reason'), along with the full list of probed subsystems. Only minor gaps remain, such as the absence of any hint about overall aggregate status or cost of the sweep.

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 and the baseline applies. It correctly signals that the check scope is fixed rather than configurable.

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?

Names a concrete verb ('health check') and enumerates exactly what is checked: container, P5 version/uptime, REST, nsdchat, running/waiting jobs, drives, cleaning flags, healthPaths free space, and log Error lines. The 'One-call' framing distinguishes it in spirit from the per-component siblings (container_status, jobs, nsdchat), though it never names them, so sibling differentiation is only inferable.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no alternative is named. An agent must infer from 'one-call' that this is the aggregate sweep to prefer over calling container_status/jobs/nsdchat individually; nothing states that trade-off or any prerequisite.

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