health_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the two things reported (module import status, tool surface), which implies a non-mutating read, but says nothing about the report's format, success/failure semantics, or whether it has side effects.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The two reported items are stated immediately with zero wasted clauses.

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?

There is no output schema or annotations, so the description must convey the return content, and it does name the two categories of information returned. For a zero-parameter diagnostic this is nearly sufficient, though the format/shape of the status report remains unspecified.

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 schema defines zero parameters, so there is nothing to document; per the rubric this yields a baseline of 4. The description correctly implies the tool takes no input, so no additional parameter detail is needed.

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?

States a specific verb ('Report') and two concrete resources: tool module import status and the current tool surface. It is clearly distinguishable from all computational siblings (fft_analysis, linear_regression, etc.) as a diagnostic, though 'current tool surface' is slightly jargon-y and could be spelled out as 'list of registered 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?

No when-to-use guidance is given. The description does not say this should be called to diagnose missing/failed tools, does not mention any prerequisites, and names no alternatives (there are none in the sibling list, but the agent is left to infer the diagnostic context entirely).

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