aap_get_controller_health

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the 'ping endpoint' detail, which implies a lightweight network read operation, and lists the return fields. However, it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or potential error conditions. Given the annotations, the bar is lower, and the description provides some supplementary context, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 and front-loaded with the primary purpose. It consists of one clear sentence plus a return specification, with no redundant or filler content. Every sentence earns its place by covering purpose and output.

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 simple read-only health check with no meaningful parameters and an existing output schema, the description is nearly complete. It states what the tool does and what it returns, which is sufficient for the agent to select and invoke it. It does not mention error handling or authentication, but these are likely common to all AAP tools and not critical for this simple endpoint.

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 input schema has one required 'params' field that is an empty object (HealthInput with no properties), meaning there are effectively no meaningful parameters. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific information, which is fine because there is nothing to document.

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 ('Check') and clearly identifies the resource ('AAP Controller health status') plus the endpoint ('ping endpoint'). This effectively differentiates it from sibling tools like aap_get_cluster_status and aap_get_instance_capacity, which focus on different aspects of the system.

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 usage for checking controller health but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over related alternatives such as aap_get_cluster_status or aap_get_instance_capacity. There are no 'when-to-use' or 'when-not-to-use' statements, so the agent must infer its context from the tool name.

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