health_check

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses that force_reconnect resets the singleton client and reconnects, and that the tool always returns a full HealthReport even on errors, including diagnostic fields (session_path, session_exists, data_dir). This adds significant behavioral context not present in 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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a clear Args section for the parameter, and a Returns section. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 one-parameter health-check tool with an output schema (HealthReport) already defined, the description covers the core purpose, the parameter's side effect, and the special guarantee of returning full data even on errors. This is complete for an agent to select and invoke 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?

The schema for force_reconnect contains only a name, type, and default, with no description (0% schema description coverage). The tool description fully compensates by explaining that True resets the singleton client and reconnects, and when this is useful, adding rich meaning 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 clearly states the tool's purpose as a health check for Telegram connectivity and session validity ('Проверка работоспособности: соединение с Telegram, валидность сессии'). It uses a specific verb and resource, and the focus on diagnostics distinguishes it from sibling operational 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?

The description provides a concrete usage scenario: using force_reconnect after 'claudegram-auth' when the server may have cached a stale no-auth state. It implies general use for diagnosing connection issues, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion cases, 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.