ContextLattice

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond what annotations provide. While annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, the description adds specific context about when auth failures occur ('If the orchestrator requires an API key and the bridge is not configured'), clarifies it 'returns an auth failure instead of mutating state,' and explains the return format. This goes beyond the basic safety profile indicated by 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 perfectly structured and concise. Every sentence earns its place: the first establishes purpose and timing, the second describes the return format, and the third covers auth failure behavior. There's zero wasted text, and the most important information (when to use the tool) is front-loaded.

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 (health check with auth considerations), rich annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It explains the tool's purpose, when to use it, what it returns, and special auth behavior. With an output schema handling return value documentation, the description appropriately focuses on operational context rather than output structure.

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?

With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline would be 4. The description appropriately acknowledges this by not discussing parameters, which is correct since there are none. It focuses instead on the tool's behavioral aspects and output, which is the right emphasis for a parameterless tool.

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 ('Run a non-destructive runtime health check') and distinguishes it from sibling tools by emphasizing it should be used 'before any memory tool call.' It explicitly differentiates from memory.search and memory.write by positioning itself as a readiness check rather than a data operation.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('when a connection fails, startup seems incomplete, or you need readiness evidence before writes') and when not to use it (implied: don't use for actual data operations). It clearly positions this as a prerequisite check before using the sibling memory tools, offering excellent alternative guidance.

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