get_health

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

Because annotations are absent, the description carries the burden. 'Get' implies read-only behavior and the returned categories are named, but there is no explicit statement that the call has no side effects, no authentication requirements, or no impact on sessions. The recovery note adds some useful behavioral context, but not full 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 three compact, purposeful sentences: purpose, usage context, and an actionable troubleshooting fallback. It front-loads the core definition and every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description tells an agent what to call, why, and what to inspect (authentication state, active sessions, configuration), plus how to recover from a failed health check. Since there is no output schema, a slightly more explicit return-shape note would make it fully complete, but the existing guidance is sufficient for a health check tool.

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 and schema coverage is complete, so there are no undocumented parameters to clarify. The rubric baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter-level detail.

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 states a clear action ('Get server health status') and specifies the resource by enumerating what is included: authentication state, active sessions, and configuration. This makes the tool's function immediately identifiable and distinct from the other notebook/session tools.

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?

It explicitly says to use this tool to verify the server is ready before starting research workflows, which is a concrete usage context. It also gives a conditional recovery path (cleanup_data + setup_auth when authenticated=false with persistent issues), but it does not explicitly contrast the tool with siblings such as list_sessions or setup_auth.

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