health

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden and does so for the most important traits: it declares the operation read-only, discloses that no secrets are exposed, and confirms no order-flow control is affected. It omits auth requirements and any cost/latency notes, but the safety profile an agent needs before calling is present.

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 sentences with no filler: the first front-loads the covered health dimensions, the second front-loads the safety guarantee. The enumerated field list earns its space because the agent cannot otherwise guess the scope.

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 values need no explanation, and the parameter schema is empty. The remaining agent questions — is it safe, is it read-only, does it touch orders — are all answered in the second sentence.

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, which sets the baseline at 4. The description correctly implies a no-argument call and adds no misleading parameter claims.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Report Pit Officer deployment health') and then enumerates exactly what is covered: per-node engine version, build profile, liveness, store reachability, schema version and path. No sibling tool covers diagnostics, so an agent can route here unambiguously.

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?

Use is implied (a status/diagnostics call) but the description never says when to call it — e.g. before trading operations, when connections look unhealthy, or as a preflight check. It names no alternatives or exclusions, so the agent must infer the trigger condition.

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