Health check

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description adds minor value by stating the HTTP method and public authorization class. This is consistent with annotations but does not add significant behavioral context beyond what is already inferred.

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 very short (three lines) and front-loaded with key information. However, the title 'Health check' is repeated from the annotations, which is redundant. Overall, it is concise and structurally sound for a simple tool.

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?

The description is minimally complete for a zero-parameter health check with an output schema. However, it does not explain what the health check actually checks (e.g., system status, connectivity) or what kind of response to expect. The annotations provide safety hints, but the description lacks enough context for an agent to understand the tool's exact behavior.

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?

There are no parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to explain parameters. With zero parameters, a baseline of 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 clearly states it is a health check, with the specific endpoint and authorization class. However, it does not differentiate from other health-related sibling tools like pc_get_plugins_by_plugin_id_health or pc_get_companies_by_company_id_tools_runtime_health, leaving ambiguity about the scope of this health check.

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 mentions 'Authorization class: public' which implies it is safe to call without authentication, but it provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus other health check tools (e.g., for plugins or companies). There is no explicit context about prerequisites, limitations, or alternatives.

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