pm_health

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

The description lacks disclosure of behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authorization requirements, or rate limits. Since no annotations are provided, the description should explicitly state that this is a safe, non-destructive endpoint, but it does not.

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 extremely concise: only two words plus the URL path. It is front-loaded with the HTTP method and endpoint, and contains no superfluous information.

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 lack of parameters and presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not describe what the response contains (e.g., status code, JSON body) or when to use it relative to other tools, which would improve completeness.

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?

There are zero parameters, and the input schema is empty. The description does not need to add parameter information. According to guidelines, the baseline is 4 for no parameters, and the description meets it adequately.

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 'GET /health — API liveness' clearly identifies the tool's purpose: checking if the API is alive. It uses the specific verb 'GET' and resource '/health', making it distinct from sibling CRUD tools.

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?

No guidance on when or why to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it should be used for pre-flight checks or monitoring, leaving the agent to infer its utility.

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