health_check

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description's job is reduced. It adds value by specifying exactly which subsystems are checked (config validity, Redis, Postgres, capability registry), giving the agent a concrete sense of the tool's behavior beyond the safety profile. No contradiction with 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?

The description is a single, well-constructed sentence that front-loads the main action ('Reports server health') and then lists specifics. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or padding.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema health check, the description is nearly complete. It covers all checked components, which implies what the report will contain. It could mention the output format (e.g., status codes/booleans), but that is not critical given the simplicity and the annotations providing safety context.

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 empty schema already provides complete coverage. The description does not need to explain any parameters. Baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description appropriately omits irrelevant param details.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Reports') and identifies the resource ('server health') along with concrete components checked: config validity, Redis cache connectivity, Postgres configuration status, and the tool capability registry. This is specific and distinguishes it from all sibling tools, which are business/data oriented.

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?

Though no explicit 'use when' statement or alternatives are mentioned, the description strongly implies usage for server health diagnostics. Given the sibling tools are unrelated and no competing health tool exists, the context is clear and no exclusions are needed. A minor gap is the lack of explicit guidance, but the tool's uniqueness makes this less critical.

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