system_health

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

The description adds the critical behavioral note 'Never returns secrets' beyond what annotations provide (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint). This is valuable for an agent evaluating safety. However, it does not describe other behaviors like response format or error handling, so it is not a full 5.

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 sentences with no superfluous words. The first sentence immediately states the purpose, and the second sentence adds a critical behavioral constraint. Every word 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?

While the tool has no input parameters and annotations cover safety, there is no output schema and the description does not describe what the response looks like (e.g., boolean, detailed status). For a health-check tool, agents would benefit from knowing the return format to interpret results 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?

There are no parameters (schema coverage 100% by default), so baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter details since none exist.

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 it checks Robinhood Chain connectivity and credential configuration for quote, signing, live trading, and X posting. This is a specific verb+resource combination, and it distinguishes itself from siblings like broker_status or execute_stock_trade by focusing on system health rather than trading or status of a specific broker.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like broker_status or retry_x_posts. The description only states what it checks, not when it is appropriate to invoke. An agent would have to infer use cases without explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.

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