invgate_get_health

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only repeats the tool's action without disclosing behavioral traits such as what the response contains (e.g., boolean, status object) or any rate limits. This leaves the agent guessing about the output.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It could include minimal output expectations without becoming verbose, so it is not a perfect 5.

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?

Given no output schema, the description should hint at the return value. It does not, leaving the agent unaware of what a 'connectivity status' response looks like. For a simple health check, this is a notable gap.

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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, the baseline score is 4. The description adds no param-specific detail, but none is needed.

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 API connectivity, using a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('InvGate API connectivity status'). It distinguishes from siblings like invgate_get_asset, which retrieve specific resources.

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 use case for verifying API connectivity is clear from the description, but no explicit guidance on when to use or alternatives is given. However, the context is sufficient given the tool's simplicity.

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