Check Instance Health

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: sections can be individually enabled/disabled, and it mentions the returned sections. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand the tool's flexibility.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and the second sentence adds a key capability (enable/disable sections) without redundancy. It is concise and well-structured.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and readOnly annotations, the description covers the tool's overall behavior, return content, and configurability. It does not detail output formatting or error cases, but for a health check tool with this level of annotation support, it is sufficiently complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description gives a high-level overview but does not add parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 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 uses a specific verb 'Run' and clearly identifies the resource ('consolidated health check on a ServiceNow instance') and the outputs (version info, cluster node status, stuck scheduled jobs, active semaphore count, operational counts). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like query_table or aggregate_query.

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 provides an explicit use case: 'Use this to quickly assess the overall health and status of an instance.' It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough that an agent would know when to choose this tool over more specific query tools.

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