llm_process_health

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context about what is inspected (async-job manager, resolved durable persistence, flight-recorder), but it does not disclose potential failure modes, latency, or whether it triggers any resolution/computation on the gateway. This is acceptable given the read-only annotations, but not deeply transparent.

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 tightly structured sentence: the verb/resource pair is front-loaded, followed by a colon and a comma-separated enumeration of the three health areas. Every phrase carries meaning and there is no filler or redundancy.

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?

With no output schema and no parameters, the description carries the burden of telling an agent what the report contains, and it does so by naming the three specific health dimensions. It does not explain the result format or mention caveats like 'requires configured engine', but for a read-only health report tool, the core information is present.

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 input schema has zero properties, so there are no parameters for the description to document. Following the rubric's baseline for 0-parameter tools, a score of 4 is appropriate since there is nothing missing in parameter explanations and the description correctly focuses on the report content rather than nonexistent inputs.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource, 'Report gateway process health', and immediately details three concrete report areas: async-job manager state, resolved durable persistence configuration, and flight-recorder health. This level of specificity clearly distinguishes it from sibling status tools like job_status, config_status, and llm_job_status, whose names indicate different scopes.

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?

There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools. The description implies it is for health reporting, but it never states conditions, excludes alternatives, or mentions prerequisites such as a running gateway or configured persistence engine. An agent is left to infer when this report is the right choice among the dozens of status/configuration tools listed.

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