check_session_health

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key behavioral trait: auto_recover=true can restart the session. However, it omits what counts as 'unhealthy', whether a restart discards in-memory state or unsaved work, and how long the check takes, all of which matter for an operation that may restart a session.

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 short sentences with no waste, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the conditional behavior. Every sentence earns its place.

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 zero-annotation, no-output-schema, single-parameter tool this is only partially complete: the agent knows what it checks and that it may restart, but not the health criteria, the return shape, or the consequences of restarting. Adequate but with clear 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single parameter is already documented as 'Restart session if unhealthy (default: true)'. The description restates this with slight added nuance ('if it hangs'), so it does little beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource: verify the Vivado process is responsive, which is clearly a health-check operation. It does not differentiate itself from overlapping siblings such as session_status or get_host_status, so an agent must guess which check to use.

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 phrase 'if it hangs' implies the scenario for calling it, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative among session_status, get_host_status, or restart_simulation. Usage must be inferred from the surrounding tool list.

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