voicebox_get_health

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

Despite no annotations, the description discloses the return data (CPU/GPU memory, loaded models, uptime) and implies a read-only operation. It adds context beyond the schema (which has no parameters) by explaining the tool's output.

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 consists of three concise sentences, front-loading the purpose and then providing details. Every sentence adds value without repetition or unnecessary information.

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 description covers the essential information needed to understand the tool's function. An output schema exists, so missing return type details are not required. It is complete for the tool's simplicity.

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 no parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description does not need to provide parameter details. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for a parameterless tool.

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 it retrieves Voicebox health, GPU, and VRAM status, and lists specific return fields (CPU/GPU memory, loaded models, uptime). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like voicebox_get_cuda_status or voicebox_get_filesystem_health.

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?

It explicitly says 'Use this to check if Voicebox is running and healthy,' providing a clear usage context. No exclusion criteria or alternatives are mentioned, but the guidance is sufficient for this simple health check.

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