health_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and only conveys scope. It does not state that the operation is read-only/side-effect free, whether it is expensive or rate-limited, or what a caller learns from the result, which matters for an inspection 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the verb leads. It is terse to the point of under-specification rather than being over-long, so it earns near-full marks on structure.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain the return value, yet it never says whether the response is a pass/fail health report or a capabilities list. For a zero-parameter diagnostic endpoint this leaves the agent guessing about what it will get back.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; per the baseline, a 0-parameter tool scores 4. The schema's additionalProperties=false also means there is no input surface left unexplained.

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?

Concrete verb ('Inspect') plus an enumerated resource list (server, CLI, vault, orchestration capabilities), which is enough to distinguish it from the job/session/account siblings. It is slightly muddled by not clarifying whether the result is a health status or a capability inventory, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

No when-to-use, prerequisite, or alternative guidance is offered. An agent can infer a diagnostic/capability-discovery role, but nothing in the text states when this should be called instead of, say, cli_execute or list_models.

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