vorion_health_check

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the response contents (status, uptime, dependency state) and the tool's non-destructive, informational nature. It lacks details on error handling or auth, but for a simple health check this is sufficient.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action and purpose. Every phrase adds value: 'pre-flight check,' 'returns status,' and 'confirm reachable' are all useful.

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 and no output schema, the description covers everything essential: what the tool does, when to use it, and what it returns. It is complete for a simple health check tool.

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 description needs no parameter details. Baseline 4 applies, and the description correctly omits irrelevant parameter information.

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 action ('Hit the health endpoint'), the resource ('Cognigate Runtime'), and the return value ('status, uptime, dependency state'). It is distinct from sibling governance tools, which involve trust checks, signals, and actions.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use: 'pre-flight check before relying on remote governance operations' and 'confirm the deployed API is reachable.' Does not explicitly state when-not-to-use or name alternatives, but the context is clear enough.

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