sassy_observability_health

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive annotations, the description discloses return semantics (status is always 'healthy' when reachable), memory-accumulating counters, reset-on-restart behavior, and that it takes no inputs. This gives an agent a full behavioral model without an output schema.

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?

Each sentence earns its place: what it is, what it returns, counter lifecycle, use cases, and the routing to the metrics sibling. It is front-loaded and has no 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?

For a parameterless health-check tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it covers the return dict, counter semantics, and typical use cases, and points to the alternative for other monitoring data. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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?

With zero parameters, the schema already covers the interface fully. The description's explicit 'Takes no parameters' confirms this, but there is no additional parameter meaning to add; baseline 4 is appropriate.

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 and resource: 'Read-only health check for monitoring,' then enumerates the exact fields returned. It explicitly names the sibling alternative, sassy_observability_metrics, for CPU/memory/disk figures, so an agent can distinguish this tool from the nearby observability 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?

It gives explicit conditions: use for liveness probes, load balancers, or a quick server sanity check, and directs CPU/memory/disk needs to sassy_observability_metrics instead. No ambiguity about when to choose this tool.

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