Get system health

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description contributes scope information beyond that — that results are broken down per integration and that a config summary is bundled in — but says nothing about cost, latency, or whether it can be slow or unavailable when the supervisor is down.

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 sentence with no filler, front-loading the primary artifact (system health report) before the secondary one (core config summary). Every clause adds information about what comes back.

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, read-only tool with no output schema, the description conveys both the shape (per-integration breakdown) and the extra payload, which is enough to call it correctly. It stops short of noting practical caveats such as dependency on supervisor availability or typical response size.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The schema is empty and fully consistent with a parameterless call.

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 names a specific resource (system health report) and its granularity (per integration, listing core, supervisor, and recorder database), plus an additional payload (core config summary). That distinguishes it from siblings like get_ha_config or get_system_log implicitly, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: nothing says whether this is for diagnosing integration failures versus a general status check, nor how it relates to the many adjacent diagnostic siblings (check_config, get_error_log, list_repairs, find_problems, get_ha_config). Usage has to be inferred from the resource name.

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