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. It clearly lists what the health check covers, which exceeds a vague 'Use for health checks.' However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe any side effects, which would be valuable for a diagnostic tool.

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 entire description is a single, information-dense sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the verb 'Diagnose' and immediately lists the key checks, making it easy to scan and understand.

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 health-check tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: the checks performed. It lacks information about the return format or exit status, but given the tool's simplicity, this is a minor omission. The description is complete enough for most use cases.

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 zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete. The description does not need to explain parameters. The baseline of 4 is appropriate here, and the description adds no unnecessary information.

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 uses a specific verb 'Diagnose' with a clear object 'memory server health' and lists concrete aspects (DB integrity, index status, capture count, schema version, embedding model). This leaves no doubt about the tool's function and differentiates it from the sibling tools, which focus on other domains.

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 usage context is implied: the user would call this when they need to check the health of the memory server. However, there is no explicit mention of when to use this vs. alternatives, nor when not to use it. Given the tool's self-explanatory nature, this is adequate but not exemplary.

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