get_system_health

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden. It lists what information is returned (health status, circuit breaker states, etc.), but does not disclose side effects, permissions, rate limits, or any other behavioral traits. Minimal disclosure beyond return content.

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 paragraph with bullet points but includes a redundant 'Returns:' line. It is adequately concise but could be shorter by merging the bullet points and the return statement.

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 zero parameters and the existence of an output schema (which documents return value structure), the description provides a good overview of the information categories returned. It is complete enough for the tool's simplicity, though it could mention that it aggregates data from other health tools.

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?

There are zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%. As per guidelines, baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description does not need to add parameter info, and it does not.

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 retrieves comprehensive system health status, using a specific verb and resource. It lists covered components, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_component_status or get_circuit_breaker_status.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the many more specific health-related sibling tools (e.g., get_component_status, get_resource_usage). No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternatives are mentioned.

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