list_health

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the HTTP method and path, but no additional behavioral details such as what the health status includes or any rate limits. With annotations covering the core safety attributes, the description provides adequate but not enriched 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 extremely concise, consisting of 'Read Health.' and the endpoint. Every word is purposeful; there is no redundancy. The purpose is front-loaded, and the endpoint provides direct reference. It demonstrates exemplary conciseness.

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 simplicity of the tool (no parameters), the presence of an output schema, and annotations that cover safety, the description is nearly complete for making a correct call. It could explain what 'health' indicates or when to invoke it, but those are not essential for execution. An agent can safely call this endpoint without further context.

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 and the schema is empty with 100% coverage. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, the description need not explain parameters. There is nothing omitted that would confuse an agent about inputs.

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 states the purpose clearly: 'Read Health' with the endpoint. It is specific about the verb and resource, and while it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings, it is the only tool dedicated to health checks among many list_* tools. It is not a tautology and gives a precise action.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions or conditions, nor does it name sibling tools that might overlap. An agent would have to infer that this is the health check tool without any context on when it is appropriate.

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