check_api_health

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral transparency. It states the tool 'checks connectivity and health,' which implies a read operation, but it does not clarify whether this makes network calls (which could be slow or fail), whether it modifies state, or what happens if an API is unreachable. Given the absence of safety hints, more transparency is needed.

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 a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. It is concise and front-loaded, with no unnecessary words. However, it could benefit from additional clarity on what 'health' entails or usage context. Still, it earns a 4 for efficiency.

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?

The tool has minimal complexity (1 optional parameter, no output schema, no nested objects). The description covers its primary use case. However, it does not specify what the tool returns (e.g., a boolean, status codes, or detailed health info) or any error conditions. For a tool with no output schema, slightly more context about expected output would improve completeness.

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 input schema already provides a clear description for the sole parameter (api_name), indicating it is optional and checks all APIs if omitted. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, so parameter semantics are adequately covered by the schema. Score of 3 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 uses a specific verb ('check') and clearly identifies the resource ('connectivity and health of configured APIs'). It distinguishes from siblings: get_api_info likely retrieves configuration details, and execute_api runs operations, while this tool assesses 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool over its siblings. It does not specify prerequisites, exclusions, or context. For example, it doesn't mention that this tool is for connectivity checks only, while get_api_info might provide more detailed API metadata. This lack of context reduces clarity.

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