sp_health

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It conveys that the tool is a read-only reachability/readiness probe, which is useful, but it does not disclose what happens when the API is unreachable, what the response format is, or what 'ready' means precisely. The behavior is implied but not detailed enough for fully confident invocation.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero redundancy. Every word earns its place, specifying the verb, resource, and criterion ('reachable and ready') without 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?

For a parameterless health probe, the description covers the core 'what' adequately, but because there is no output schema, the agent is left to wonder what the response will look like and how failure is signaled. A brief line about return format or error behavior would meaningfully improve completeness.

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 no parameter semantics to clarify; the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed by focusing purely on the reachability check.

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 uses a specific verb ('check') and identifies the resource ('Super Productivity Local REST API') and target state ('reachable and ready'). It clearly conveys this is a health-check probe, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling sp_get_status, which could plausibly be selected for similar health/status queries.

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 guidance on when to call this tool versus alternatives such as sp_get_status, which could serve an overlapping 'status' role. The description gives no context about preconditions, expected usage scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer when a health probe is appropriate.

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