get_site_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 of behavioral disclosure. It states it 'gets' health status, implying a read operation, but doesn't specify what 'health status' includes (e.g., metrics, uptime, errors), whether it requires authentication, or how it handles errors. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, clear sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's purpose without fluff. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loaded with the essential information. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 has no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks depth. It explains what the tool does but doesn't cover behavioral aspects like return format or error handling. For a simple read tool, it's complete enough to understand the basic purpose but misses contextual details that would help an agent use it effectively.

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 has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there's no need for parameter details in the description. The description appropriately doesn't mention parameters, avoiding redundancy. A baseline of 4 is justified as it doesn't add unnecessary information beyond what the schema provides.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('health status for the current site'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'get_sites' or 'get_devices', but it's specific enough to understand what it does. The description avoids tautology by not just restating the name.

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 like 'get_sites' or 'get_devices'. It implies usage for checking site health but doesn't specify context, prerequisites, or exclusions. Without any when-to-use information, it leaves the agent to guess based on sibling tool names alone.

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