health

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds context about returning a JSON health envelope and the auth failure scenario, enhancing transparency beyond 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?

Three sentences, each adding essential information: purpose, usage context, and output/edge case. No redundant words, front-loaded with the main action.

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 zero parameters, rich annotations, and output schema present, the description fully covers the tool's purpose, safety profile, and key behaviors (auth failure, output format). No gaps.

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?

No parameters exist (schema has zero properties). Baseline is 4 since schema coverage is perfect. The description adds value by describing the output structure (JSON health envelope with fields like status, services, components, queue).

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 specifies a non-destructive runtime health check, the specific resource (health), and its role as a precursor to memory tool calls. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (memory.search and memory.write) by being the pre-check tool.

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 states when to use: connection failure, startup incompleteness, or readiness evidence needed. Also explains that an auth failure occurs if the bridge is not configured, providing clear usage boundaries.

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