health

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the output (API URL, version, hosted-API notice) and the HTTP method/path, but does not explicitly state it is read-only or describe error behavior. This is adequate for a simple health check but not richly detailed.

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?

One concise sentence, front-loaded with 'Backend health check'. Every word adds value with no redundancy or filler.

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-parameter health check with no output schema, the description is complete. It states the purpose and what it confirms, which is all that is needed for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 schema fully covers parameter semantics. The description adds the endpoint path 'GET /', which is meaningful context beyond the empty schema. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description maintains that.

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 identifies the tool as a backend health check with a specific verb ('confirms') and resource (API URL, version, notice). It is distinct from all sibling tools, which focus on investigations, seeds, and ingestion.

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 implies usage for verifying backend connectivity and API metadata. There are no similar sibling tools, so no explicit exclusions are needed. It lacks explicit 'when to use' phrasing but is clear in context.

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