autofyi_health

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context by specifying that it checks reachability of both the backend and the FYI browser session, and reinforces non-mutation with 'Makes no changes.' No contradictions with annotations.

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 entire description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the action, the resource, and the non-mutating nature. No wasted words or redundant details—every word 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 zero-parameter health-check tool with no output schema and strong annotations, the description is fully complete. It tells the agent exactly what is checked and that no changes are made, leaving no critical gaps.

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 per the rubric. The description does not need to add parameter meanings, and it correctly stays silent on parameters, letting the empty schema suffice.

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 a specific verb ('Check') and explicitly names the resources being checked ('deployed backend and its FYI browser session'). It clearly distinguishes this health-check tool from sibling tools that deal with client/billing data.

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 phrase 'Check whether ... are reachable' makes the intended use obvious. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but given the tool's simple health-check nature and distinct siblings, the context is clear enough for a 4.

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