health

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly lists the checks performed, which implies a read-only health check. It does not detail return format or permission requirements, but given the nature of a health check, this is reasonably 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?

The description is two sentence long, front-loaded with the primary action, and provides specific details without any wasted words. Every sentence contributes to the understanding of the tool's purpose.

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 simple health check with zero parameters and an output schema, this description adequately covers the purpose and the specific checks. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, and the output schema handles return-value details.

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, so the schema is trivially complete. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it doesn't. Baseline score of 4 for parameter-less tools is appropriate.

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 tool's function with a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('server configuration and inputs'). It lists concrete checks (target directory, artifacts, warehouse connectivity), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like run_summary, list_failing_tests, and sample_failing_rows that deal with test outputs rather than system 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?

The description implies use for verifying system readiness but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. The context is clear but lacks direct 'use this when' statements.

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