http_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. It explains that the tool follows redirects, reports health (2xx/3xx), latency, redirect chain, and failure cases. It also mentions timeout clamping. This is transparent for a read-only GET tool, though it omits potential side effects like rate limiting or authentication handling.

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 well-structured: a brief summary, then args, then returns. Every sentence is informative and earns its place. No unnecessary words.

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 and the presence of an output schema in the description, the description is complete. It covers input, output, and behavior, and the sibling tools are distinctly different. No missing critical information.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters fully. It does: url is described as 'Full URL to check' with an example, timeout is described with clamping range and default. This adds significant value beyond the schema.

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 'GET an http(s) URL, following redirects, and report response health' and answers specific questions about endpoint upness, speed, and redirects. It distinguishes from siblings like ping_host, dns_lookup, etc. by focusing on HTTP health checks.

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 specifies that only http:// and https:// URLs are accepted, which is a key constraint. The purpose is clear enough to imply when to use, but it lacks explicit differentiation from siblings (e.g., 'use this for HTTP endpoint health; for network connectivity use ping_host').

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