get_server_health

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes what the tool does (composite health check) and its output purpose, but lacks details on performance aspects like response time, error handling, or data freshness, which are important for a health-check tool.

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 highly concise and front-loaded, using two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's scope and purpose without any wasted words. Every sentence adds value by defining the composite check and its high-level answer.

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 complexity (composite check across multiple subsystems) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It specifies what is checked but not the format or details of the health assessment, leaving gaps in understanding the full behavioral context.

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 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately focuses on the tool's function without redundant parameter info, aligning with the baseline expectation for zero-parameter tools.

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 with specific verbs ('check', 'answers') and resources ('server status, active faults, DIMM/PSU/fan/storage status, and power consumption'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_faults or get_sensors by providing a composite health assessment rather than isolated metrics.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('Answers "Is the server healthy?"'), providing clear context for its application. However, it does not specify when not to use it or name alternatives among the sibling tools, such as using get_faults for fault-specific queries instead.

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