health_check

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

Despite no annotations, the description discloses key behavioral traits: it calls a lightweight endpoint (GET /park) that exercises the full auth and transport stack, and implies that failure indicates invalid credentials. This goes beyond a simple description and helps the agent understand the tool's behavior.

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: two sentences plus a usage line. It front-loads the core purpose and follows with rationale and use cases. No extraneous words or repetition. Every sentence adds value.

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 tool's simplicity (zero parameters, clear purpose, and presence of an output schema), the description is fully complete. It covers what the tool does, when to use it, and what underlying resource it accesses. The agent has all necessary information 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 tool has zero parameters, and the input schema is empty. The description adds no parameter details, which is appropriate since none exist. Baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description confirms the lack of parameters without misleading the agent.

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?

Explicitly states the tool's purpose: 'Verify credentials work.' It uses a specific verb+resource combination and clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., get_park_info, list_reservations) by focusing on authentication and connectivity rather than data retrieval.

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?

Provides explicit use cases: 'Use when: starting a session, debugging auth, or after rotating CAMPSPOT_API_KEY.' While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, the guidance is clear and context-specific, making it easy for the agent to decide when to invoke this tool over siblings.

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