check_alive

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'HTTP/HTTPS connectivity testing' but omits details like timeout behavior, result format, or side effects. An agent cannot infer what 'alive' means technically.

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 very concise, with no redundant sentences. Structured Args and Example are front-loaded, making it easy to parse.

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 no output schema, the description should explain return values or behavior. It lacks information on what constitutes 'alive' and error handling, leaving an agent uncertain about expectations.

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 description adds meaning beyond the schema: it explains 'targets' as domains/URLs and 'user_agent' as custom string. The example demonstrates usage, compensating for 0% schema coverage.

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 if targets are alive via HTTP/HTTPS, specifying the verb 'Check' and resource 'targets'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like port_scan or subdomain_enum by focusing on HTTP/HTTPS connectivity.

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 includes structured Args and an Example showing how to call the tool. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use or compare to siblings, the example provides clear invocation guidance.

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