invokeai_system

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format (success, operation, data, message, configured) and specifically notes that health returns configured=false when unreachable, which is valuable behavioral context. It does not discuss side effects, but the introspective nature is clear from 'check' and 'introspection.'

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 well-structured with a clear opening purpose, a rationale section, explicit return format, examples, and notes. It is not overly verbose for the information conveyed. Every section serves a purpose, though the rationale section could be considered slightly meta but not wasteful.

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 single-parameter introspection tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage context, return format, examples, and a special case (configuration flag). Sibling tools are clearly different domains, so confusion is unlikely. The description fully equips an agent to use the tool 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the parameter is fully documented with an enum. The description adds examples and a note about the health operation, but it does not add deep semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline is 3, and the added examples are helpful but not substantial enough to raise it.

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 with a specific verb and resource: 'Check InvokeAI connectivity, version, and runtime configuration.' It also enumerates the specific operations (health, version, config, stats) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools that focus on queue, gallery, models, or generation.

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 provides clear context by calling it 'the standard first call for onboarding and debugging,' which implies when to use it. It also gives examples and notes about the health operation's behavior. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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