health_check

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It conveys the non-mutating read-only nature ("Returns system health status") and enumerates exactly which checks are performed (Docker, DNS, filesystem), which is meaningful behavioral context beyond the empty schema.

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?

Two front-loaded sentences with zero filler. The first sentence states the core purpose; the second adds high-value detail about what the health check covers. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given a zero-parameter read-only tool with an output schema available, the description is nearly complete: it states the purpose and enumerates the checks performed. It could add minor context like failure behavior or whether connectivity means outbound network checks, but these are not essential for a simple health-check tool.

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 per the rubric baseline is 4. The description need not explain parameters, and the empty schema accurately reflects that the tool takes no input.

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 verb ("Check") and resource ("server health and connectivity"), then specifies the covered subsystems (Docker, DNS, filesystem), distinguishing it from siblings like server_info which likely provides broader server details.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and description—this is the tool to run for a health/readiness check—but there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over a sibling like server_info, nor exclusion scenarios.

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