health

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by detailing the non-destructive nature, the JSON envelope fields (status/services/components/queue), and the auth failure behavior. No contradiction with annotations.

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 four sentences, each serving a clear purpose: stating the tool's nature, providing usage guidance, describing the return format, and noting an edge case. It is front-loaded and concise.

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 health check tool with no parameters and an existing output schema, the description explains the return format and distinguishes the auth failure case. It fully covers the necessary context given the tool's simplicity and the annotations.

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 zero parameters, so schema description coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter meaning. Baseline 4 for 0 parameters 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 the tool performs a non-destructive runtime health check, specifically for use before memory tool calls. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (memory.search, memory.write) by focusing on readiness and connection validation.

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?

Explicitly specifies when to use: when a connection fails, startup seems incomplete, or readiness evidence is needed before writes. Also describes the auth failure scenario, indicating when not to expect a successful health check.

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