Check data source health

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructivedHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the basic operation (e.g., output behavior, error cases, or implications of a health check), but it does not contradict the 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence communicates the entire tool purpose with zero filler. Every word earns its place, and the key scope ('one data source') is immediately clear.

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 low-complexity, single-parameter tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description covers the essential operational intent. It could mention what a health check result means or when to prefer it over query/get, but nothing critical is misising for a correct call.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the single parameter 'uid' is adequately documented as 'Grafana data source UID'. The description does not need to add parameter detail, and adding none is acceptable given the schema already carries the semantic load.

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 verb ('Run'), a specific resource ('the Grafana plugin health check'), and a clear scope ('for one data source'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_datasource (metadata retrieval), query_datasource (querying), and list_datasources (enumerating).

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 implies usage on a single data source via a UID, which is clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives such as get_datasource or query_datasource, and offers no when-not-to-use guidance.

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