health_check

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Check' implies a read-only operation, but there's no information about authentication requirements, rate limits, response format, or what constitutes 'health status' (uptime, latency, memory usage, etc.). The description doesn't disclose any behavioral traits beyond the basic action.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized for a simple health check tool and front-loads the essential information. Every word earns its place in conveying the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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 health check tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what information will be returned, what metrics constitute 'health status', or how to interpret results. Given the lack of structured data elsewhere, the description should provide more complete context about what the tool actually returns and how to use that information.

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 with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, and it doesn't need to compensate for any schema gaps. No parameter information is needed or expected in the description.

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 action ('Check') and target resource ('Redis API health status'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from potential sibling health checks or explain what 'health status' entails beyond the basic purpose.

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. With sibling tools focused on search and parser operations, there's no indication whether this is for system monitoring, pre-operation validation, or troubleshooting scenarios. No explicit when/when-not instructions or alternative tool references are provided.

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