health

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is known. The description adds real value beyond them by disclosing that no authentication is required and pinning the HTTP method and path, which is exactly the kind of invocation context an agent needs.

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 clauses, purpose front-loaded before the endpoint detail, zero filler. Every element earns its place.

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 should ideally clarify what the probe returns or how failure is signalled, and it does not. For a simple no-arg liveness check with annotations covering safety this is a minor gap, but the return semantics are left implicit.

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. Baseline for a parameterless tool is 4, and no parameter information is omitted or misrepresented.

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 gives a specific verb-equivalent ('Liveness probe') and the exact endpoint (GET /api/kalagh/health), so the purpose is unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate itself from the nearby siblings 'info' and 'status', which an agent could easily confuse it 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?

'Liveness probe — no authentication required' implies the usage context (checking service availability, callable before credentials exist), which is genuinely useful. But it never states when to prefer it over 'info' or 'status', so guidance is only implied rather than explicit.

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