Check Instance 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 tool returns multiple health metrics and allows enabling/disabling sections via boolean parameters. Although it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or non-destructive, the nature of a health check implies it. The description provides sufficient insight into the tool's behavior.

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-loading the core purpose and listing outputs. Every sentence is valuable; no wasted words. Ideal conciseness for a health check tool.

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?

The description covers the returned information categories and customization via parameters. It lacks details on output format or error handling, but given no output schema and a straightforward use case, it is reasonably complete. Could mention prerequisites like instance authentication, but the schema handles that.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context by summarizing that boolean parameters enable/disable sections, but it does not provide meaning beyond the schema descriptions. The threshold parameter is mentioned only in schema.

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 runs a 'consolidated health check' on a ServiceNow instance, listing specific return categories (version, cluster, stuck jobs, semaphores, operational counts). This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from all sibling tools, which are primarily CRUD or query operations.

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 explicitly advises using it 'to quickly assess the overall health and status of an instance.' It also notes that each section can be individually enabled/disabled, implying customization. It does not mention when to avoid using it or alternative tools, but the unique purpose makes misuse unlikely.

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