health_check

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

No annotations were provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains the two behavioral modes (no network vs. network ping) and their triggers. It lacks details on error handling or permissions, but for a health check tool, the key behavior is disclosed.

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 concise with two sentences and a clear explanation of the probe parameter. Every sentence adds value, and it is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 low complexity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers input behavior and the two modes. However, it does not describe what the tool returns (e.g., status summary), which would 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, but the description fully explains the 'probe' parameter: default value and the two behaviors (env/config only when False, LLM ping when True). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema, which only provides type and default.

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's purpose: 'Check Pinion configuration and LLM provider reachability.' It uses a specific verb ('check') and names the resources ('configuration and reachability'), distinguishing it from sibling tools which characterize functions, methods, and modules.

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 explains when to use each mode of the tool: when 'probe' is False, it only inspects environment variables and config with no network call; when True, it sends an LLM ping. This provides clear context for parameter usage, though it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools or state when not to use this tool.

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