system_health

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It mentions 'when authenticated' as a precondition, which is useful. However, it doesn't describe what the response contains beyond listing the diagnostic domains, nor does it disclose potential failure modes, latency implications, or whether this is a read-only operation. The description adds some value but doesn't fully compensate for the absence of annotations.

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 two sentences and covers purpose, scope, and usage context efficiently with no wasted words. It front-loads the core function. Slightly more detail on what the diagnostics contain or how to interpret them could add value, but the current structure is clean and effective.

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?

This is a simple health-check tool with no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. Given the low complexity, the description covers the essential aspects: what it checks, the authentication prerequisite, and the troubleshooting use case. It doesn't detail response format, but for a tool this simple with no parameters, the coverage is reasonably complete.

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 0 parameters with 100% schema coverage, so there are no parameters to document. Per the rubric, 0 parameters earns a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics since none exist, which 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 clearly states the tool checks system health status for the Storno API and specifies the diagnostic areas (database, queue, storage, service). It's distinct from sibling tools like system_version, which handles version info. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from system_version or anaf_status siblings.

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 notes it's 'useful for troubleshooting connectivity or service issues,' providing a clear when-to-use signal. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternative tools but the troubleshooting purpose gives adequate context. No explicit exclusions or alternative tool mentions, but the intended use case is reasonably clear.

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