coppelia_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 only covers the non-mutating aspect. It says nothing about what happens when the simulator is unreachable (raises vs. reports a degraded status), any connection timeout, or whether a partial result is returned when simIK is missing but simOMPL is present — all critical for a health 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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the actual checks and followed by the negative boundary. Nothing redundant and nothing that merely restates the tool name.

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 two-parameter read-only probe the enumerated checks roughly imply the return payload, and no output schema exists to do that job. Still, with no annotations and undocumented parameters, an agent lacks guidance on connection failure semantics and endpoint configuration — gaps the description should have closed.

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 description coverage is 0%: host and port are bare typed fields with defaults and no explanation. The description never mentions either parameter, so nothing clarifies that host/port target the ZeroMQ endpoint or what happens if the simulator listens elsewhere. With zero coverage the description should compensate and does not.

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?

A specific verb (check) paired with three explicitly enumerated resources: the ZeroMQ connection, the simulator version, and runtime availability of simIK/simOMPL. That inventory makes it instantly distinguishable from the action-oriented siblings (coppelia_step, coppelia_simulate, coppelia_motion), which none of the other tools could be confused with.

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 sentence 'Does not launch or modify the scene' gives a useful negative boundary, telling the agent this is a diagnostic probe rather than a scene operation. But it never states the positive trigger — e.g. call this before coppelia_motion to confirm simIK is available, or to diagnose a dead ZeroMQ connection. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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