Daemon health

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing the returned fields (version, uptime, warning/error counts), which is the main thing annotations cannot convey; it does not mention cost, freshness, or whether the counts are cumulative.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the resource and immediately followed by the returned fields. No filler, though the phrasing is compressed enough that 'version' and 'uptime' are not clearly scoped (daemon vs. host).

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 output schema, the description must carry the return-value burden and it does name the payload fields. A zero-parameter read-only health check is a simple tool, so this is close to sufficient; only the shape/meaning of the warning and error counts is left ambiguous.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. No parameter semantics are needed here.

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?

Names the specific resource (CoolerControl daemon health) and enumerates what it reports: version, uptime, warning/error counts. However it does not differentiate itself from the sibling get_status, which an agent could easily confuse with a health/diagnostic call.

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 statement of when to call this versus get_status or list_api_endpoints — no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. The agent must infer that this is the diagnostic/summary endpoint from the field list alone.

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