api_health

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions what the tool returns (status, response time, SSL validity, optional body validation), which is helpful, but it lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or performance implications. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 concise and front-loaded, stating the core purpose in the first sentence and detailing the return values in the second. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information without redundancy. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly listing key features, but it's still efficient.

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 moderate complexity (checking multiple endpoints with validation) and no output schema, the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It covers the purpose and return values but lacks details on behavioral aspects like error handling or performance. Without annotations or an output schema, it should provide more context to be fully helpful.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the 'endpoints' parameter and its nested properties. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining the 'max 20' limit or the purpose of validation checks. With high schema coverage, the baseline 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Check the health of multiple API endpoints.' It specifies the verb ('check') and resource ('API endpoints'), making it easy to understand. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'http_request' or 'header_analyzer', which might also involve API interactions, so it doesn't reach a perfect score.

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 versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools or contexts where this health-check tool is preferred over others, such as 'http_request' for general requests or 'header_analyzer' for header-specific checks. This lack of comparative context leaves the agent without clear usage direction.

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