endpoint-health

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns health status, worker counts, and job statistics, but does not clarify if the operation is read-only (implied), any potential side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or data freshness. The description covers basic behavioral output but omits important operational constraints.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's purpose and key outputs. It contains no redundant or ambiguous language, but could benefit from structuring the included elements (worker counts, job statistics) for easier scanning. Overall, it is efficient and to the point.

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 simple health-check tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately specifies the returned information (health status, worker counts, job statistics). However, it lacks completeness in behavioral transparency and usage context, leaving minor gaps especially given the absence of annotations or output schema.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage with a clear field description ('ID of the Serverless endpoint to check health for'). The tool description does not add further parameter details beyond what the schema already provides, functioning at the baseline for schema-rich definitions.

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 retrieves health and operational status of a Serverless endpoint, including specific details like worker counts and job statistics. This verb-resource combination (Get + health) effectively distinguishes it from related sibling tools like get-endpoint which likely provides general endpoint information.

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 implies the tool should be used to check endpoint health but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., get-endpoint), nor any prerequisites or caveats. No exclusion criteria or alternative suggestions are given, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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