get_system_health

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, but the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: many boards have no sensors and an empty answer is legitimate, not a failure. This prevents an agent from misreading an empty result as an error.

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?

Lead sentence front-loads the purpose, and the Notes block is compact and load-bearing rather than filler. Every sentence earns its place.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the key edge case (empty readings) is covered. The only real gap is the unexplained 'device' parameter, which is minor for a mostly self-describing read 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?

Schema coverage is 0% and the sole optional 'device' parameter is never mentioned in the description, so the agent gets no help understanding what it selects or what the default null means. The description does nothing to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb (reports) and enumerates the exact resource captured: voltage, temperature, fan and PSU state. That specificity lets an agent distinguish it from get_system_resource or get_system_clock, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

There is no guidance on when to reach for this tool versus the many other get_system_* and monitoring siblings (get_system_resource, get_system_routerboard, get_poe_monitor). The Notes section explains how to interpret a result, not when to select the tool.

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