index-health

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers nothing beyond the basic name. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only operation, what kind of output to expect, whether it has side effects, or any performance characteristics. The description fails to provide any behavioral context that would help an agent understand what happens when invoking this tool.

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?

While 'Health check' is technically concise, it represents under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The description is too brief to be useful - it doesn't earn its place by providing meaningful information. A truly concise description would still convey essential purpose and context in minimal words, which this fails to do.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a completely inadequate description, this is severely incomplete. The description provides no information about what the tool returns, what systems it checks, or how to interpret results. Given the complexity implied by having multiple index-related sibling tools, this description is completely inadequate for agent understanding.

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 there's no need for parameter documentation in the description. With 100% schema description coverage (though empty since there are no parameters), the baseline would be 3, but the absence of parameters elevates this to 4 since there's no parameter documentation burden. The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter gaps.

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 'Health check' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'index-health', providing no additional specificity about what the tool actually does. It doesn't specify what resource or system is being checked, what 'health' means in this context, or how this differs from other health-related tools that might exist.

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?

The description provides absolutely no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of appropriate contexts, prerequisites, or relationships to sibling tools like 'index-list-keys', 'index-query', or 'index-upsert' that might serve different purposes within the same index system.

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