list_healthchecks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only says 'List healthchecks', which implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, result limits, ordering, or any other list-specific traits. The description is minimally transparent.

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?

Single concise sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or redundancy.

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 one-parameter list tool with a fully described schema, this is minimally viable: an agent knows what to call and with which parameter. However, there is no output schema, no annotations, and no mention of pagination or return shape, leaving some gaps for a complete understanding.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the schema already documents zone_id as 'The zone ID'. The description's 'for a zone' adds no new meaning beyond the schema, so it does not improve parameter understanding. Baseline 3 applies because the schema carries the full parameter burden.

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 a specific verb ('List') and identifies the resource ('healthchecks') plus the scope ('for a zone'), which clearly states the core operation. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_healthcheck or list_endpoint_healthchecks, so it lacks explicit differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_healthcheck for a single healthcheck or list_endpoint_healthchecks. The intended context is implied by the name and description, but no exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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