health_check

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the output shape (server status, project info/buildModel summary, capabilities) and explains timeout behavior, including the JAVALENS_TIMEOUT_SECONDS range and the fact that health_check and load_project are never limited.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then cleanly organized into USAGE, OUTPUT, and WORKFLOW sections. Every section adds useful information without wasted wording.

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, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description is complete: it explains purpose, usage timing, expected return content, timeout behavior, and the recommended next step. An agent can call it correctly without consulting other fields.

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 input parameters, so parameter semantics are not applicable. The description does mention a timeout configuration value, but that is not an invocation parameter; baseline 4 is appropriate for a no-parameter tool.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Check server status and project state.' It is clearly a startup/health diagnostic tool, distinct from siblings such as load_project, and it explains the relationship between them.

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 call on startup, provides a numbered workflow, and names load_project as the next step when no project is loaded. The conditions for use and the alternative path are unambiguous.

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