healthcheck_all

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

With no annotations, the description must inform about side effects and behavior. It states that it returns health statuses, but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, whether it can fail partially, or if there are rate limits. The authorization requirement is mentioned, which is a positive.

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 relatively concise with clear sections for Args and Returns. It front-loads the main purpose. However, the mixed language (Japanese and English) and the contradiction add unnecessary noise. Still, it is well structured for a short description.

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?

Given the tool has a single parameter and an output schema, the description covers the core functionality and authorization. However, the parameter contradiction and lack of explanation about the return structure (beyond field names) leave gaps. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds only a label 'caller_agent_id' with no explanation of its purpose or format. Worse, it claims the parameter is required while the schema marks it as optional with a default null, creating a contradiction. This undermines the agent's ability to use it correctly.

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 the tool performs a health check for all agents. The verb 'execute' and resource 'health check for all agents' are specific. It distinguishes from sibling 'healthcheck_agent' which is for individual agents. However, the contradiction between description (required parameter) and schema (optional) slightly reduces clarity.

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 provides a usage constraint: 'Owner and Admin only'. This tells the agent when authorization is needed. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like 'healthcheck_agent', nor does it give conditions for use.

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