headscale_meta

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context beyond that: the required Bearer authorization scheme and a per-action indication of what the call reports (database connectivity). It does not describe failure behavior when the database is unreachable, but for a read-only health probe with annotations this is a modest gap.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then auth, then the action/endpoint mapping in a compact paragraph with no wasted sentences. Minor awkwardness from the generated boilerplate '(1 actions)' and the abrupt final fragment 'Report database connectivity', but nothing meaningful is buried.

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?

For a one-action read-only tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, auth, endpoint, and the meaning of the returned information. Only the when-to-use routing against the three sibling toolsets is missing, which is a usage dimension rather than a completeness failure.

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 100%, so the schema already documents body, query, params, and the single-value action enum. The description's action listing duplicates the enum rather than adding syntax or formatting guidance for query/path parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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?

Names the resource (meta toolset on a self-hosted Headscale server) and enumerates the single action with its HTTP mapping: health -> GET /api/v1/health. It also states the outcome ('Report database connectivity'), so an agent knows this is a health/database-connectivity probe rather than a policy, node, or user operation. The phrase 'meta toolset' is vague on its own, but the explicit action list resolves it.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus headscale_policy, headscale_nodes, or headscale_users, and no note that it is the only action available for connectivity checks. The agent must infer that this is a liveness/health probe from the endpoint name alone. Implied usage only.

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