health_check

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

No annotations exist, but the description fully discloses behavior: lightweight design, only loads config.ini, no network connections, guaranteed return keys, and error states. No contradictions.

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?

Well-structured with a headline summary, usage guidance, detailed return fields, and parameter documentation. Every sentence adds value without verbosity.

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?

Without an output schema, the description enumerates all return keys (status, service, version, etc.) and explains error handling. It compensates fully for missing structured metadata.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description adds a full parameter explanation: 'config_path: Path to config.ini (empty string uses default search).' This provides essential meaning.

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 'Report server version and config status — without connecting to any device.' It identifies the specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools that connect to devices.

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 advises 'Call this at session start (or after a tool-call timeout)' and specifies when not to use it: 'opens NO NETCONF/SSH connection to any device,' contrasting with other tools.

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