health_check

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns health status, version, tier, and capabilities, implying a non-destructive read operation. No behavioral traits like side effects or authorization requirements are mentioned, but the simple nature of a health check makes this acceptable.

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 well-structured: a one-line purpose summary, a brief usage sentence, and a clear list of return fields with an example. Every sentence adds value, and the formatting aids readability.

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 zero parameters and a detailed output description (including an example dictionary), the tool is fully specified. The description covers purpose, usage, and return schema, making it self-contained.

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 no parameters (schema_coverage 100%). Per guidelines, baseline is 4. The description adds value by detailing the return structure, which compensates for the absence of parameter information.

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 server health status and lists the returned fields (status, version, tier, capabilities). It uses a specific verb ('check') and resource ('server health'), and is easily distinguished from sibling tools like analyze_audio or detect_sarcasm.

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 says the tool can be used to verify that the server is running and functioning correctly, providing clear context. It does not exclude specific scenarios, but for a health check tool, this is adequate.

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