health_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It correctly conveys that this is a non-mutating probe and names the returned fields, but it is silent on failure behavior (throws vs. returns a falsy/negative status), whether it consumes a request against rate limits, and what auth form is expected — meaningful gaps for a connectivity/auth test whose whole purpose is the failure path.

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?

Two short sentences with the action first and the return value second; nothing is redundant and there is no padding.

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 with no output schema, this is close to sufficient: it says what is checked and what is returned. The missing piece is how a failed check is surfaced, which an agent needs in order to interpret the result.

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 there is no parameter semantics to explain; the baseline of 4 applies. The description makes clear that no input is needed by framing it as a pure probe.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Verify connectivity and auth to DefectDojo', and adds the concrete return payload (instance URL, product count). This is clearly distinguishable from all siblings, which fetch findings or product lists rather than probing the instance itself.

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 only implied by the nature of a health check; the description never says when to prefer it, e.g. before a batch of calls, or after a credentials change, nor that it should not be used to retrieve product data (list_products covers that). No explicit when/when-not guidance or alternative routing.

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