health_check

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It states what the tool does but does not disclose safety characteristics like read-only nature, idempotency, or side effects. For a health check, the implied behavior is safe, but more explicit transparency would be better.

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 concise with every line earning its place. The most important information (purpose, level, usage) is front-loaded, and it uses clear formatting with a level line and separate USE FOR/DO NOT USE FOR sections.

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 low complexity (one optional parameter, output schema present), the description covers purpose and usage comprehensively. It could elaborate on what 'pool stats, version, extensions' mean but the output schema likely covers return structure. Minor gap, still complete enough.

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% with one parameter (format) having a description and enum. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 checks connection health with specifics like pool stats, version, and extensions. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly listing DO NOT USE FOR database_health and query_performance.

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?

Provides explicit USE FOR examples (connection status, pool health, 'is database reachable?') and DO NOT USE FOR with sibling tool names, giving clear guidance on when to select this tool.

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