se_health

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

Annotations already establish the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile, so the description's '[READ]' tag adds a little. More valuable is the explicit edge case that an SE with no VS reports 0 rather than an error, which is useful behavioral context beyond the structured 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 compact and well-structured: purpose is front-loaded, followed by return fields, usage guidance, alternatives, and a critical edge case. Every sentence contributes information an agent needs.

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 parameters, an output schema present, and comprehensive annotations, the description covers the remaining practical concerns: what fields are returned, when to use the tool, and the zero-VS reporting behavior. Nothing an agent needs to invoke or interpret the result is missing.

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 takes zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain any. Per the calibration, zero param count starts at baseline 4, and the description correctly avoids inventing parameter 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 reports the health of every Service Engine, including name, operational status, and VS counts. It also distinguishes itself from related tools like se_list and vs_status, so an agent can identify its role without ambiguity.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool: when VS health degrades and the agent needs to determine whether the issue is at the SE level. It also names se_list and vs_status as alternatives and explains what each provides, making the routing decision clear.

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