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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions liveness and dependency checking, which implies a read-only health probe, but it does not disclose what dependencies are checked, whether it can return error details, or any side effects. The behavior is under-specified for a tool with no annotation support.

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 concise five-word phrase with no filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded and communicates the essential purpose quickly. It could be slightly more structured with a verb, but it remains efficient and readable.

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 that the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description is largely complete for a simple health check. It identifies the core concerns (liveness and dependencies). It does not detail response semantics, but the presence of an output schema offloads that burden.

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 already fully covers all inputs. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed. The baseline of 4 for a zero-parameter tool 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 states the tool performs a liveness and dependency check, which is a clear, specific purpose for a health endpoint. It is not a tautology and the resource is implicitly the service/API itself. It differentiates from the domain-specific sibling tools, which all handle job or profile operations.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no sibling health-check tools, so the need to distinguish is low, but there is also no context about typical usage, such as pre-flight checks or operational monitoring. This leaves usage entirely to inference.

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