health_check_input_server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It explains the return dict and the meaning of the 'status' field, which helps the agent understand outcomes. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, auth requirements, or rate limits.

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 very concise: two short paragraphs with no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded, and the return details are clearly separated.

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 simple health check tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the return value. It could mention authentication implications, but the current level is adequate.

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 zero parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter-level information. The baseline score of 4 is appropriate as it is not missing any parameter details.

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 verb 'Health check' and the resource 'Arcanna Input API Server'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_external_input_jobs or send_event_to_external_input_job, which deal with jobs and events.

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 purpose is self-evident as a health check, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor any when-not conditions. The description implies usage for verifying server status but lacks clarity on decision boundaries.

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