airbyte_health_check

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent. Description supplements with HTTP method (GET /health), lightweight nature, and details of success/failure output, adding value beyond annotations.

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?

Description is well-structured with clear sections (purpose, behavior, when to use, return, example, related tools). No redundant sentences, and every part adds value.

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 simple health check tool with rich annotations and output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, usage guidance, expected return, error handling, and relation to other tools.

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?

Input schema has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. Description reinforces that no parameters are needed and provides an example call. No further semantics required.

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 checks Airbyte API reachability and health using a specific verb and resource. Among siblings, no other tool serves this purpose, so it stands out.

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?

Explicit 'When to Use' section lists specific scenarios (verify instance, diagnose errors, confirm credentials). Also advises using it as the first call and suggests related tool after (airbyte_list_workspaces).

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