healthcheck_agent

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses that only Owner/Admin can use and returns a health status. However, it contains a contradiction: it states 'caller_agent_id' is required (必須) while the schema marks it as optional with a default null. This inconsistency reduces transparency.

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 short but includes unnecessary docstring formatting (Args/Returns) and line breaks. It conveys essential information but could be more streamlined.

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?

The output is described ('success, health_status'), and the permission constraint is given. However, it lacks details about error handling, what happens if the agent doesn't exist, and does not differentiate from many sibling tools. Adequate for a simple tool but with 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It provides basic labels for 'agent_id' and 'caller_agent_id' and incorrectly marks the latter as required. It adds minimal meaning beyond the parameter names and contradicts the schema.

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 'Execute health check for a specific agent' (特定エージェントのヘルスチェックを実行する), using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'healthcheck_all' which checks all agents.

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 description notes that only Owner and Admin can use this tool, providing a usage constraint. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when to use this tool versus other health-check-related tools like 'get_unhealthy_agents' or 'attempt_recovery'.

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