health_check_instance

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

Without annotations, the description details the checks performed (connectivity, error counts, job success, indexes, etc.) and the output (health score, action list). It is transparent about scope and return, though does not state if any state changes occur (likely read-only).

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 efficiently structured: an introductory sentence, a bullet list of checks, and a concluding line on output. No redundant words; every sentence adds value.

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?

Given no annotations or output schema, the description sufficiently covers purpose, inputs (none), checks, and output format. It provides enough context for an AI agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

No parameters are defined in the schema, so no additional semantic detail is needed. The description correctly implies no external inputs, achieving baseline clarity for zero-parameter tools.

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 verb 'Run a comprehensive health check' on the 'connected ServiceNow instance', listing specific checks. It distinguishes from sibling tools which are more focused on dependencies, flows, or integrations, not general health.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. However, the description implicitly suggests usage for instance health monitoring. There is no mention of alternatives or context for decision.

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