health_status

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 does not state whether this is a read-only operation, whether it performs live network checks or returns cached status, what happens if a connection is down (error vs. degraded status), or whether it requires an active broker. For a health-check tool with zero annotation coverage, the description offers minimal insight into behavior beyond the obvious.

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 short sentence with no waste. It's appropriately terse for a 0-parameter tool. Minor deduction because it could have added one clause about what 'health' measures without bloating the text.

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 0 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is fairly minimal. 'Get health status of all connections' tells the agent what it does but leaves open questions: what does health status look like (boolean, metrics?), does it check connectivity live, and how does it relate to test_connection? Given the rich sibling context (test_connection, connection_info, system_status), more clarity on scope and output would help the agent select correctly.

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, so there is no schema to compensate for. A 0-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4, and the description appropriately tells the agent what the tool covers ('all connections'), which is meaningful since it could have been scoped to a single connection. No parameter ambiguity exists to resolve.

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 states 'Get health status of all connections' with a clear verb (get) and resource (health status of connections). It distinguishes somewhat from siblings like list_connections and system_status, but 'health status' is ambiguous—it doesn't clarify what 'health' means (e.g., connectivity, latency, last heartbeat). The purpose is clear enough to be distinguished from list_connections but lacks specificity about what health entails.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Among siblings there are test_connection, connection_info, system_status, and broker_stats, all of which could overlap with 'health status'. The description does not explicitly say when to prefer this over test_connection or system_status, nor does it note prerequisites (e.g., must connections exist first?) or exclusions.

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