System status

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful context by listing which subsystems are inspected. It makes clear this is a passive health probe and does not mutate anything, going beyond the bare annotation.

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 concise sentences: the first defines scope, the second defines when to use it. Every phrase adds value and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 covers the main returned categories and the intended diagnostic use, which is sufficient for a zero-input status endpoint. It could specify exact response formatting, but the absence of an output schema is mitigated by the concrete list of reported areas.

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 description coverage is 100%, so there are no inputs left for the description to clarify. The baseline of 4 applies since no parameter documentation burden exists.

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 the tool reports the health of the paperless-ngx install and enumerates the exact areas covered (version, database/index status, Redis/Celery connectivity, API version). It clearly distinguishes this diagnostic endpoint from sibling document/data 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 check connectivity and diagnose failures, providing a concrete use case. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the intended trigger condition is clear.

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