health_check

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

No annotations are provided, and the description gives minimal behavioral details. It does not state whether the check is read-only, what it actually does (e.g., ping, validate credentials), or potential side effects. For a simple health check, the description is insufficiently 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 extremely concise with only two short sentences, no wasted words, and front-loaded with the core 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?

Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description provides adequate context for a basic health check. However, it lacks detail about what the health check entails (e.g., connectivity to which backend) and what the output represents, leaving some ambiguity.

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 has no parameters, so the description adds no parameter information. With 100% schema coverage, baseline score is 3.

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 purpose as a health check for backend connectivity, with a specific verb ('check') and resource ('backend connectivity'). It distinguishes itself from sibling parse tools by noting it is useful before running them.

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 explicitly mentions when to use the tool ('before running parse tools'), providing clear context. However, it does not elaborate on when not to use it or suggest alternatives, missing some guidance.

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