health

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a notable behavioral trait (returns readiness even if backing-store init fails), which is valuable. However, it doesn't mention side effects, whether it's read-only, or what happens under normal conditions, leaving some uncertainty.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose and a critical edge case without any wasted words. It is optimally concise for a zero-parameter tool.

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 and an existing output schema, the description covers the essential behavior (readiness even on failure). It doesn't elaborate on what 'readiness' means or typical usage context, but that is largely implied and the output schema fills in return details. Minor gap: no explicit statement that this is a health check for system liveness, though the name and content suggest it.

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 per the baseline rule it scores 4. The description adds nothing about parameters (correctly, as there are none), and the schema is trivial (empty object).

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 returns readiness and specifies a key condition (even when backing-store initialization fails). It is a specific verb+resource and distinct enough from siblings like 'status' or 'workspace_status', though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from them.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't state prerequisites, typical scenarios, or why one would call it over other status-like tools. The context is implied (health check) but not explicit.

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