patina_health

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose useful behavioral traits: 'unitySessionCount counting both connected and reloading sessions' clarifies a counting nuance, and the include_unity_state semantics explains what that parameter actually verifies. It does not mention permissions or side effects, but this is a read-only health check and the provided detail is substantive.

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 dense and front-loaded with the action verb 'Return'. It lists multiple return elements without excessive padding. It is a bit long, but every clause contributes specific information, maintaining good conciseness despite the technical list.

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 tool has no output schema, so the description must explain return values, which it does by listing categories and exact field names. It also gives a practical usage scenario for a key parameter. It omits detailed description of include_bridge_diagnostics, but the schema covers it, and the overall picture is sufficiently complete for a health-monitoring tool.

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 schema already documents both parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful extra semantics for include_unity_state by explaining it proves the Unity session 'is actually responding, not just registered.' It does not add detail for include_bridge_diagnostics, but the schema covers its behavior.

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 opens with 'Return' and enumerates specific resource outputs (server version, MCP surface status, bridge port, command count, broker summary), making the tool's purpose clear. It is distinct from sibling tools like patina_capabilities or patina_sessions by focusing on health/status metrics.

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?

It provides a conditional usage hint for include_unity_state=true ('to prove the routed Unity session is actually responding'), which gives some context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any exclusions or non-use cases.

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