pbi_health_check

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

No annotations were provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses 'Solo lectura' (read-only) and enumerates the specific checks performed (dependencies, DLLs, session, project, live layer, pending journals). This provides meaningful behavioral context beyond a bare tool name, though it does not describe return format or error behavior (covered by output schema).

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 compact and front-loaded. The first line states the core purpose, the second line adds read-only and usage priority, and the third line details what it reports. Every sentence adds value with no 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 zero-parameter read-only health check tool, the description is complete: it covers purpose, usage timing, and the specific health signals it returns. The existence of an output schema covers return value details, so the description needs no further elaboration.

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 schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). With no parameters to document, the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and it doesn't.

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 'Estado general del servidor: dependencias, DLLs, sesion y proyecto', clearly stating the tool's purpose as a server health check. It further specifies what it reports (live layer availability, open .pbip project, items needing attention), distinguishing it from more focused siblings like pbi_session_info.

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?

Explicitly states 'Es lo primero que conviene llamar' (It's the first thing to call), giving clear guidance on when to use it. It also explains what it tells the user, but it does not list alternatives or explicit when-not-to-use scenarios, so it stops short of a 5.

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