get_instance_health

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation via 'Check' but does not disclose return format, potential errors, or the exact scope of health checks. This lacks the detail needed for an agent to understand side effects or limitations.

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 concise sentence, which is efficient, but it is under-specified. It provides a clear action but lacks any structural breakdown or additional context, making it borderline between appropriate and minimal.

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 simple one-parameter read-only tool without an output schema or annotations, the description is thin. It does not clarify what health checks are included, what the response contains, or how this relates to the sibling tools, leaving the agent with significant gaps.

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 schema has one parameter, instance_name, with 0% description coverage. The description does not mention the parameter or how to specify the instance, relying solely on the parameter name which is somewhat self-explanatory but not explicitly documented.

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 identifies the tool as checking EC2 state and AWS system/instance health checks, which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_instance_metrics and get_service_status, though it could be more explicit about the exact health check details.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or comparison with sibling tools such as get_instance_metrics or get_service_status.

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