get_collector_health

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description adds value by describing the enriched nature of the result and the optional history component. It also frames the tool as a 'leading indicator' for outages, which gives useful interpretive context beyond the annotations. It doesn't cover return format or pagination, but that is a minor gap here.

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?

Three sentences with no filler. The first sentence fronts the main purpose and output contents, the second adds contextual value, and the third gives explicit tool routing. Every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only status tool, the description covers purpose, key output fields, and when to choose it over the sibling. The schema fully documents parameters and annotations cover safety. The only notable gap is that no parameters are required, so the behavior when called with no arguments is not explicitly stated, but this is a minor ambiguity given the overall clarity.

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 already documents all four parameters clearly. The description mentions 'optional CollectorDown history,' which partially aligns with include_history, but does not add meaningful parameter syntax or nuance beyond the schema. A baseline 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 states a specific verb and resource ('Enriched collector status') and enumerates the exact data it returns: time-since-last-contact, downstream device count, dependent alert count, and optional CollectorDown history. It differentiates itself from get_collectors by positioning this as the health-focused variant, so an agent can identify it without inspecting the schema.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool: 'Prefer this over get_collectors when investigating potential outages.' This gives a clear decision rule and names the alternative tool, which is exactly the kind of routing guidance agents need.

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