nifi_get_health

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered externally. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond that - it never mentions the compact-vs-verbose output switch, redaction of sensitive values, or default root-canvas scope, which are the traits an agent would actually need.

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?

It is a single short fragment with no filler, but it is under-specified rather than concise - no verb, no scope, no qualifiers. Every word earns its place yet the whole sentence is too small for the tool's job.

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?

An output schema exists so return-value detail is not required, but the description still omits the two behavioral facts an agent must know: that the result is scoped by process group and that verbose swaps the compact view for full redacted JSON. For a read-only health probe this leaves a meaningful gap.

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 reported as 0%, so the description must compensate for the two parameters (process_group_id, verbose), and it does not mention either. An agent learns nothing about scoping or the verbosity flag from the text; the only usable parameter documentation lives in the nested $defs.

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 fragment enumerates the report contents (state counts, queued connections, validation-error processors), which tells an agent roughly what comes back, but it never states the action or scope and is silent on which process group is inspected. It also does not differentiate itself from overlapping siblings such as nifi_get_flow, nifi_get_bulletins, or nifi_list_queue.

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 when-to-use guidance, no statement of what this replaces (e.g. instead of paging through nifi_list_queue or nifi_get_flow for problems), and no mention that it can be scoped to a process group. Usage is only loosely implied by the word 'health'.

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