health

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions what the tool does but fails to describe key traits such as whether it requires authentication, its rate limits, what 'health status' entails (e.g., uptime, errors), or the response format. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand operational behavior.

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, clear sentence that front-loads the core purpose without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter tool, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema), the description is adequate but incomplete. It states what the tool does but lacks context on behavioral aspects like response format or system dependencies. Without annotations or output schema, more detail would help an agent use it effectively, though it meets minimum viability.

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 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately does not discuss parameters, which is efficient. A baseline of 4 is applied since it avoids unnecessary details while matching the schema's completeness.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('health status of cloud orchestrator and all connected services'), making it immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from all sibling tools, which focus on API keys, code execution, searches, and other operations rather than health monitoring.

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 usage context (monitoring system health) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks guidance on prerequisites, frequency, or scenarios where it might be preferred over other tools like 'railway_status' or 'sentry_stats' for related checks.

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