x_health_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the three checks it performs, giving some transparency, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what permissions are needed, whether it has side effects, or how results are returned.

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?

A single compact sentence front-loads the primary check and then lists the two reporting aspects. There is no filler or redundant wording.

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?

The description covers what the tool checks, which is useful for a zero-parameter diagnostic. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it does not describe the return format or any behavioral details an agent would need to interpret the health report fully.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There are no parameter semantics to clarify, and the empty schema requires no additional description.

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 states a specific diagnostic purpose: check whether X is open in SurfAgent, identify the current X page state, and report composer/account readiness. This is clearly distinct from narrower siblings like x_get_state or x_get_composer_state, though it does not explicitly name an alternative tool.

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?

Usage is implied as a preflight or diagnostic check before interacting with X, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no conditions or exclusions, and no named alternative such as x_get_state or x_get_composer_state.

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