moonray_health

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it only says 'check' and lists items. It does not disclose whether this is read-only, what happens when a required tool or delegate is missing, what it returns, or whether it has side effects.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, front-loading the key verb and objects. It is appropriately sized for a simple health-check 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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description should clarify the return value or success/failure semantics, but it does not. The description also lacks usage context such as when this health check is relevant relative to the other moonray and render 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must explain verify_delegate, but it only mentions the delegate in the resource list. The parameter title implies meaning, yet the description does not state what setting it to true or false changes about the check.

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 and names the resources it inspects: the staged runtime, required tools, and MoonRay Hydra delegate. This distinguishes it from sibling render/viewer commands as a health/diagnostic preflight rather than a rendering or scene-inspection action. The phrase 'staged runtime' is somewhat jargon-heavy but not misleading.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is given. The description does not state to run this before rendering, when troubleshooting, or instead of moonray_capabilities or moonray_resources, leaving the agent to infer the intended context from the name alone.

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