mui_health

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool fetches live components and reports count and latency, which implies a read-only operation with performance metrics. However, it lacks details on potential side effects, error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs, leaving gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 highly concise and front-loaded: 'Health check: fetch components live and report count + latency'. It uses a single, efficient sentence that clearly communicates the core functionality without any wasted words, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has gaps. It explains what the tool does but doesn't cover behavioral aspects like error conditions or output format details. For a health check tool, more context on expected outputs or failure modes would enhance completeness, though it's minimally viable.

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 has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's action and outputs. This meets the baseline for tools with no parameters, as it avoids unnecessary detail.

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's purpose: 'Health check: fetch components live and report count + latency'. It specifies the verb ('fetch'), resource ('components live'), and outputs ('count + latency'), making it distinct from sibling tools like 'get_mui_component' or 'list_all_components'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from siblings beyond implying a health-focused operation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any specific contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions, nor does it refer to sibling tools like 'generate_mui_component' or 'search_mui_components' for comparison. Usage is implied as a health monitoring tool, but this is not explicit.

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