health_check

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context about version-dependent availability, which isn't captured in structured fields. However, it doesn't describe other behavioral traits such as response format, error handling, authentication requirements, or rate limits, leaving gaps for a tool that likely returns system status information.

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 highly concise and front-loaded, consisting of two sentences that directly state the purpose and a key constraint. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy or fluff, making it efficient for an AI agent to parse.

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 the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It covers the basic purpose and a version constraint, but without annotations or output schema, it doesn't explain what the health check returns (e.g., status codes, metrics) or other contextual details like authentication needs. This makes it minimally viable but incomplete for full understanding.

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 0 parameters, and the input schema has 100% description coverage (though empty). The description doesn't need to explain parameters, so it appropriately avoids redundant information. A baseline of 4 is applied as per the rules for zero-parameter tools, since no parameter semantics are required.

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's purpose as checking the Coolify API health status with a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('Coolify API health status'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools which are focused on CRUD operations for applications, servers, projects, etc., rather than system health monitoring. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with potential alternatives like 'get_version' which might provide related system information.

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 provides implied usage guidance by noting that the endpoint may not be available in all Coolify versions, suggesting it should be used cautiously in version-dependent contexts. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'get_version' for version checks or other health-related tools if they existed), and doesn't specify prerequisites or exclusions beyond version availability.

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