service_health

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states what the tool does but does not disclose error behavior, side effects, or the exact meaning of 'available'. This is acceptable for a simple health check but leaves some behavioral details unspecified.

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 with no redundant words. It efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and output.

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 tool with no input parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It specifies the action (check availability) and the return value (index counts), sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 schema has zero parameters, so description coverage of parameters is trivially complete. With no parameters, the description cannot add meaning beyond the schema, justifying the baseline score.

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 function: check availability of the linked RAG API and return index counts. The verb 'check' and 'return' specify actions, and the resource is explicit. It distinguishes from sibling tools (search, ask, list) by focusing on service health rather than content operations.

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 purpose implies when to use it (to verify service availability and get index counts), and its differentiation from siblings is clear. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or conditions for selection, so it falls short of fully explicit guidance.

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