openemis_health

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. It states that the tool does a 'real login round-trip', which is a significant behavioral detail. It does not discuss potential side effects (e.g., session creation), but for a health check, the disclosure is adequate.

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 extremely concise: two sentences, each earning its place. The first states the purpose, the second adds a valuable behavioral insight. No filler or redundancy.

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 no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides a solid overview: it explains what is checked and the implication of success. It could mention expected error behavior or return values on failure, but for a simple health check, it is mostly 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 tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100% automatically. No parameter information is needed beyond what the schema provides. The description adds no param details, which is appropriate.

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 specific verbs ('Check whether... reachable and credentials are valid') and clearly identifies the resource (OpenEMIS API endpoint). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like CRUD operations by stating it performs a login round-trip to test connectivity and credentials.

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 implies this tool should be used before CRUD operations by stating 'if this passes, CRUD will work.' However, it does not explicitly list when not to use it or name alternative tools, though the health check's purpose is clear enough.

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