healthcheck

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior, and it does so by precisely listing what the healthcheck examines (integrity, WAL mode, schema version, record counts). This gives a clear read-only diagnostic profile. It does not mention potential side effects like performance impact or whether it acquires locks, but for a read-only health check, the disclosure is sufficient and adds value beyond the tool name.

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 with no filler. It communicates the action ('Check') and the specific aspects checked, ensuring every word earns its place. This is an exemplary concise structure.

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 zero-parameter, read-only healthcheck tool with an output schema present, the description is complete. It lists all checks performed, and the output schema handles return value details. There are no missing prerequisites, side effects, or alternative guidance needed given the tool's simple, self-contained nature.

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, so the baseline is 4. The description needs to provide no parameter-level semantics, and it correctly avoids adding any. The input schema is empty, so there is nothing else to clarify.

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 uses the specific verb 'Check' with a clear resource ('SQLite') and enumerates four distinct aspects (integrity, WAL mode, schema version, record counts). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like database_backup and database_backups, which deal with backups, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 tool's purpose as a healthcheck is implied by its name and description, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor any exclusionary conditions. It is evident that it should be used for verifying database health, but more explicit context (e.g., 'run before backups' or 'use when debugging database issues') would improve guidance.

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