get_system_health

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It accurately states the tool returns a summary, strongly implying a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly confirm non-destructiveness, mention any required permissions, or describe what 'health' means in terms of thresholds. The lack of disclaimers or caveats leaves some ambiguity, but the description is not misleading.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently lists all key information. No wasted words, and the structure is immediately understandable.

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's simple purpose, zero parameters, and the presence of an output schema (as indicated by context signals), the description provides sufficient context. It clearly enumerates the subsystems covered, though it could have added a note about its relationship to more specific sibling tools for enhanced completeness. That gap prevents a 5.

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 zero parameters, and the input schema is an empty object (100% schema coverage). Per the rubric, a baseline score of 4 applies when there are no parameters, as there is nothing further the description needs to explain about arguments.

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 begins with the specific verb 'Return' and names the exact resource: a 'health summary' covering CPU, memory, load, disk, and service health. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like get_disk_usage (disk only) and get_service_status (services only).

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 tool's role as a high-level overview is implied by listing multiple subsystems, but the description does not explicitly say when to use this instead of more specific siblings, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. Usage context is implied but not stated.

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