get_server_health

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine non-obvious behavior: servers that are not RUNNING have no health data and return lifecycle state instead, which is exactly the edge case an agent needs. It stops short of describing freshness, auth, or error 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?

Two tight sentences, no filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the important edge case (non-RUNNING servers) placed last as a caveat.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, yet the description usefully enumerates the health states and explains the non-RUNNING fallback. It omits what happens for an unknown server name, but for a one-parameter read tool this is close to complete.

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 single parameter server_name has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It only implies that one identifiable server is targeted ('one WebLogic server'); it adds no naming convention, case sensitivity, or domain/path format guidance.

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 gives a specific verb ('Report') and resource ('health of one WebLogic server') and enumerates the returned health states (ok, warn, critical, failed, overloaded), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not name or contrast with siblings like get_jvm_stats or list_servers, leaving differentiation to be inferred from the resource.

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: an agent can infer you call this to inspect a single server's health. There is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not-to-use, and no alternatives (e.g., list_servers for enumeration, get_jvm_stats for deeper diagnostics) are mentioned.

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