sf_health

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the tool's read-only, diagnostic nature by listing what it confirms (connectivity, auth state, configuration). However, it lacks details on potential side effects (e.g., whether it logs activity, affects rate limits, or caches results), error behavior, or response format. The description adds useful context but doesn't fully compensate for the absence of annotations.

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 highly concise and well-structured. It uses two short sentences: the first states the purpose, and the second provides specific usage guidelines. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff. The information is front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to quickly understand the tool's role.

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's simplicity (0 parameters, diagnostic function) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, usage context, and what the tool checks. However, for a tool with no annotations, it could benefit from more behavioral details (e.g., idempotency, error handling). The output schema mitigates some gaps, but the description alone isn't fully comprehensive.

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 has 0 parameters, and the input schema has 100% description coverage (though empty). The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, as none exist. It focuses on the tool's purpose and usage context, which is sufficient. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for a zero-parameter tool where the schema fully covers the (empty) parameter space.

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's purpose with specific verbs and resources: 'Preflight check for MCP -> onboard_api connectivity and auth context.' It explicitly distinguishes this diagnostic/verification tool from all sibling tools, which are operational (e.g., create_new_account, list_campaigns, modify_keywords). The description avoids tautology and provides a concrete, distinct function.

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 explicit, actionable guidance on when to use this tool: 'Use this first in a new session to confirm...' It specifies the exact context (new session initialization) and the preconditions it verifies (backend reachability, auth state, default client id). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools that perform operational tasks rather than session setup validation.

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