aiworkhub_task_health

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the tool surfaces write-gate state, a behavioral detail not in the annotations. It does not discuss cost, staleness, or what 'health' comprises, but an output schema exists to carry return-shape detail.

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?

Two sentences, both load-bearing: the first states purpose and scope, the second handles the routing decision. The scoping constraint is front-loaded with zero filler or restatement of the tool name.

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?

A zero-parameter, read-only health check with an output schema needs only purpose, scope, and sibling routing — all present. Nothing required to invoke it correctly is missing, and return values are covered by the output schema.

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 by rule. There is nothing parameter-related the description could meaningfully add, and it correctly stays silent rather than padding.

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?

States a specific verb ("Check") and two concrete resources ("task queue health" and "write-gate state") scoped to the parent AIWorkHub task queue. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like aiworkhub_dispatcher_health or aiworkhub_task_list, which cover different subsystems.

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 bounds usage ("for the task queue and write gate only") and names the alternative with the condition that selects it ("use aiworkhub_doctor_diagnose for a cross-subsystem verdict"). An agent knows both when to call it and when to route elsewhere without opening any schema.

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