health

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

The annotations already establish that this is a safe, local read-only operation, and an output schema exists for return details. The description adds that it checks installed external components, which is useful behavioral context, but it does not disclose depth of checks, failure behavior, or performance traits.

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?

It is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Every listed item contributes to understanding what the health check reports.

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 zero-parameter read-only health tool with annotations and an output schema, the description covers the essential scope. The phrase 'each external piece' is slightly vague, but nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics burden and the baseline is 4. The description appropriately avoids discussing nonexistent inputs.

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 identifies a server health/status resource and enumerates what it reports: status, version, working directory, and installed external components. It is easy to distinguish from the media-specific *_info siblings, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from lathe_modules or name alternatives.

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 content implies a diagnostic/health-check use case, but there is no explicit guidance on when to call it versus other tools or when not to use it. The usage is inferable rather than stated.

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