health_check

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

Without annotations, the description fully explains the behavior by defining the three possible statuses (healthy, degraded, error) and their conditions. It also discloses that the response has a fixed shape, which is valuable for callers.

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 two focused sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose, and every sentence adds behavioral value. It is concise without being under-specified.

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 zero-parameter health check with no output schema, the description fully covers purpose, behavior, and return shape. It gives a complete picture for an agent to invoke and interpret the tool correctly.

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?

This tool has zero parameters, so the schema already provides complete coverage. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed; the 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 this is a service health check that reports version, config presence, and a minimal API probe. It identifies the exact resource and action, and is distinctly different from sibling tools like enforce_denies or daily_brief.

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?

It provides clear context by mentioning a 'monitoring caller' and explains why the fixed shape is beneficial (no branching on missing keys). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternative tools.

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