coeus_healthcheck

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It lists what is validated but doesn't disclose what happens on failure, whether it makes network calls (the probe_network param suggests optional network probing), whether it modifies anything, or what the output looks like. The description is a static list of checked items without behavioral context.

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?

One sentence that front-loads the purpose and lists the checked components compactly. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more 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?

For a healthcheck tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin. It doesn't explain what a successful or failed validation looks like, whether the tool is safe to run, or how the optional probe_network parameter affects behavior. An agent would need to call it to understand its behavior.

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 schema already documents the single parameter. The description doesn't add meaning beyond the schema, but with full coverage the 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 uses a clear verb ('Validate') and names the specific resources it checks: entry point, providers, keys, CLI paths, and dependencies. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like coeus_runtime_diagnostics or coeus_capabilities, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling to differentiate from.

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 implies this is a health-check/validation tool for the Coeus environment, but it doesn't state when to use it versus alternatives like coeus_runtime_diagnostics or coeus_version. No explicit when/when-not guidance is provided.

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