wafle_system_health

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so safety is covered. The description adds behavioral detail by specifying the exact checks (db/redis/upstream/WooCommerce) and that latency is returned per check, plus the cost implication of being a 'cheap' call.

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 sentences: one for scope and output, one for usage recommendation. Every word contributes. There is no fluff or repetition.

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 read-only health check, the description provides sufficient detail: components checked, return value (latency), and intended use. No output schema exists, but the simple output is adequately implied.

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?

There are zero parameters, and the schema has 100% coverage (trivially). The description doesn't need to explain parameters; it correctly focuses on 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 clearly identifies the tool as a health snapshot of the wafle backend, listing specific components (db, redis, upstream catalog, WooCommerce core) and states it returns latency per check. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like wafle_system_stores_health and wafle_system_queue_stats.

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 explicitly advises using this as 'a cheap first call when something looks off in production,' giving clear diagnostic context. It doesn't enumerate alternatives, but the 'first call' phrasing implies a triage role.

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