health

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals what the tool inspects (auth layers, credential identity, datasource visibility), the meaning of the failingLayer value, and the remediation step. It does not explicitly state whether the check is read-only, but a health check's non-mutating nature is strongly implied and no contradiction exists.

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?

Three sentences, all substantive. The main purpose is front-loaded, the diagnostic details are compactly listed, and the remediation instruction is concrete. No filler or redundancy.

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 zero-parameter diagnostic tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is complete: it states what is checked, how results are interpreted, and what action to take on a specific failure mode. It gives the agent enough to decide when to call it and what to do with its output.

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 zero parameters and the input schema is empty, so there is nothing for the description to clarify about parameters. Per the zero-parameter baseline, a score of 4 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Check Grafana connectivity and authentication.' It enumerates exact diagnostic outputs (failing auth layer, credential identity, visible datasource count), which distinguishes this health-check tool from sibling data-access tools like query_sql and list_datasources.

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 gives an explicit trigger: 'Call this first whenever another tool fails.' It also specifies a follow-up action when failingLayer=grafana. It does not spell out when not to use it, but the context makes the tool's diagnostic role clear relative to the sibling tools.

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