health_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states the tool verifies credentials, implying a read-only, non-destructive action. However, it does not describe what happens on success/failure (e.g., return format) or any additional behaviors like latency. Minimal but adequate for a health check.

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?

Two concise sentences with no wasted words. The key purpose is front-loaded, and the warning provides essential context efficiently.

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 simple health check with zero parameters and an existing output schema, the description is complete. It explains the tool's purpose and its critical relationship to other tools. No additional details are necessary.

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 no parameters, so the schema coverage is 100% and there is nothing to add. The description does not need to provide parameter information, making it fully sufficient.

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 'Verify credentials work,' which is a specific verb-verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., get_order, list_documents) by being a health check rather than a data retrieval or action tool. The warning that failure implies all other tools fail further clarifies its role.

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 implicitly recommends using this tool first, as 'If this fails, all other tools will too' strongly implies a prerequisite check. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but given the sibling tools are all operational, the context is clear.

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