health_check

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

Because no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a useful trait, namely that the tool returns a suggested context bundle for session start; however, it is silent on whether the tool is read-only, what "configuration" reveals (for example, whether secrets could be exposed), and whether there are 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?

The description is a single sentence with no filler, and the server-health purpose is front-loaded. Its only weakness is that it compresses two deliverables, the health and configuration check and the context bundle, into one clause without separating them.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain what the caller receives from a health check. It gestures at a "suggested context bundle" but does not describe the shape of the health or configuration report, so an agent cannot anticipate what the response contains or how to act on it.

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 no parameter documentation is required; the baseline score for a zero-parameter tool is 4. Nothing in the description conflicts with the empty schema.

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 opens with a concrete verb-plus-resource phrase ("Check RecallVault server health, configuration") and adds that it returns a suggested context bundle. This is clearly distinguishable from the memory CRUD siblings. It loses a point because it bundles two distinct purposes (health check and context-bundle suggestion) into one description without explaining how they relate.

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 phrase "for session start" hints at the appropriate moment to call this tool, but there are no explicit when-not conditions and no alternatives named. The description does not say what to do if the health check fails or whether to call this before or after memory_setup.

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