woodpecker_get_service_health

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output fields (status, container state, restarts, error rate, etc.), suggesting a read-only health check. It does not mention side effects or hidden behaviors, but the information given is sufficient for basic transparency.

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 a single sentence that efficiently lists key output fields. It is front-loaded with the purpose and avoids extraneous detail. However, it could be slightly more structured for 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 the simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description adequately covers the tool's function and output. It lists the fields returned, which compensates for the lack of output schema. The missing param semantics reduce completeness slightly.

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 only parameter 'service' is a string with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not explain what format or values 'service' expects (e.g., service name or ID), leaving the agent to guess. This is a significant gap.

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 it provides a 'detailed health snapshot for one service' and enumerates specific fields (status, container state/health, restarts, etc.), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'woodpecker_detect_blind_spots' or 'woodpecker_diagnose_root_cause'.

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 tool is for obtaining health details of a single service, but it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to siblings. The context is clear enough for a simple tool.

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