get_aria_health

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and idempotent, and the description adds meaningful behavior not inferable from schema: a 503 from the platform is converted to OFFLINE and never raised, so the tool answers even when Aria is down. It also discloses what overall_status represents and names the returned fields.

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 front-loaded with the tool's purpose and return values, followed by essential usage context and error-handling behavior. Every sentence adds value without 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?

The description is complete for a simple health-check tool: it explains the meaning of the status, the return fields, the 503 handling, and the relationship to a sibling tool. Even though there is no output schema, the description provides enough return-value detail for an agent to use the result correctly.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains the optional target parameter. The description does not add further parameter-level details, but none are necessary given the high schema coverage.

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 checks Aria Operations platform node status and explicitly defines the ONLINE/OFFLINE outcome semantics. It is distinct from sibling tools by focusing on platform-level health rather than alerts, resources, or collectors.

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 to use it to verify Aria Operations is functioning before investigating monitoring blind spots, and notes that per-service breakdown is not exposed by the public API. It also gives a concrete next-step alternative: check list_collector_groups when status is ONLINE but data looks stale.

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