winops_sys_health

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

Annotations already mark it read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavior: concrete threshold values for degraded/unhealthy, the conditional sampling_advice field, and the returned status shape. It does not contradict the 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 description is well-organized: one-sentence summary, return format code block, compact examples, and bullet notes. It is front-loaded and each section earns its place without filler.

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?

The tool is simple (one optional boolean param, no nested schema), and the description provides thresholds, return format, and examples. It does not elaborate on the contents of sampling_advice or how 'detailed' is reflected in the response, but those are minor gaps for this complexity level.

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 single parameter, 'detailed', is already fully described in the schema ('Include full disk usage breakdown'). The description's example health(detailed=True) demonstrates usage but does not add significant semantic information beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource statement: 'Check system health against CPU/memory/disk thresholds.' It clearly conveys a read-only health assessment tool and includes status categories, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like system_health_card or winops_perf_system.

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 main sentence implies when to use it (when a CPU/memory/disk health check is needed), and the threshold notes clarify interpretation. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling alternative (e.g., winops_perf_system for raw metrics) would be more appropriate.

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