yevgeny_health

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. The word 'Check' strongly implies a read-only diagnostic with no destructive side effects, and the list of checks tells the agent what state is inspected. It does not describe the return format or failure behavior, but for a health check this is a reasonable level of 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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Check that Yevgeny is usable') and then uses a colon-separated list to enumerate specific checks. Every word earns its place, with no repetition or filler.

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 parameterless health-check tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to select it and invoke it correctly. It specifies the subject of the check and the concrete dimensions of usability, covering the essential decision-making needs.

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, so the baseline is 4. The description adds meaningful context by defining what 'usable' means (Ollama reachable, models pulled, Python interpreter, recent jobs), which helps the agent interpret the tool's purpose even though there is nothing to configure.

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 uses the specific verb 'Check' and names the target resource 'Yevgeny', then enumerates exactly what is verified: Ollama reachability, pulled models, the resolved Python interpreter, and recent jobs. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling delegation tools, which perform actions rather than diagnostics.

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 implies this is a health-check/diagnostic tool to confirm Yevgeny is usable, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. With siblings like delegate_start and delegate_status, an agent can infer it is a preflight check, but the guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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