health_check

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden. It discloses the OAuth2 Client Credentials Grant, cached client reuse, lightweight nature, exact return keys, value sets (e.g., 'status: healthy/degraded/error'), and even notes keycloak_version is None due to cost. This is exceptionally transparent.

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 front-loaded with purpose, then usage, then return contract – well structured. However, the closing paragraph about READMEs is meta-commentary irrelevant to an AI agent invoking the tool, adding slight bloat. Otherwise, every sentence earns its place.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description fully specifies return keys, possible values, and meanings (including 'detail' for errors). It also covers deployment-specific fields like keycloak_url and realm. For a zero-parameter health check, this is complete and self-sufficient.

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, and the schema confirms this. The description correctly doesn't waste space on parameter details. Per rubric, a 0-param tool gets a baseline of 4, and there is no additional semantic burden to meet.

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 KeyCloak backend connectivity / authentication' – a specific verb with a precise resource. It immediately distinguishes this from sibling tools (none of which are health/connectivity checks). The purpose is unambiguous and well-scoped.

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 instructs when to call: 'at session start (or after a tool-call timeout)' and explains what it confirms. It also states what it does NOT do ('does NOT enumerate users, events, or sessions'), giving a clear when-not boundary. This fully satisfies the 'when/when-not' criterion.

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