health_check

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does well: it defines the status semantics (healthy vs degraded), explains the consequence of degraded (affected tools fail at call time), and discloses a security-relevant boundary (http_auth lists prefixes, never header values). The main omitted behavior is whether this call has any side effects or cost, but the disclosure is otherwise rich.

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?

It is front-loaded with the payload summary, then details the return shape and status rules. Each sentence adds a distinct fact (contents, shape guarantee, status definition, auth redaction), though the parenthetical asides make it slightly denser than necessary.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates fully by describing the fixed return shape (status/service/version + backend fields), the possible status values, and the http_auth field's contents. For a zero-parameter diagnostic tool, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate, and schema coverage is 100% on an empty object.

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 names a specific resource and its exact payload: version, which wrapped binaries are present on PATH, and the http_get auth prefixes. It is easily distinguished from the sibling network probes (http_check, dns_lookup, ping_host), which all test remote targets rather than reporting this service's own state.

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 phrase 'so a monitoring caller never has to branch on missing keys' implies the intended use is health/monitoring checks, which is a reasonable implicit context. However, it never states when to prefer this over siblings or what a caller should do with a 'degraded' result beyond the note that affected tools fail at call time.

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