run_health_diagnostics

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It explains what the tool does (runs health checks, generates report) but does not explicitly state whether it is read-only, has side effects, or requires permissions. The scope of components is mentioned, but more detail on operational impact would improve transparency.

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 concise with three sentences: a clear title sentence, a sentence elaborating scope, and a sentence describing return value. It is front-loaded and contains no fluff.

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 a described return value (dictionary with results and recommendations), the description is fairly complete. It does not detail the output structure or potential errors, but for a tool of this complexity it provides sufficient information.

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 no parameters (0 params, 100% schema coverage). The description adds value by explaining the scope of the diagnostics (components, circuit breakers, resource usage) beyond the empty schema, achieving the baseline of 4 for parameter-less tools.

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 'Run comprehensive health diagnostics' and lists specific components (all components, circuit breakers, resource usage) and outputs (diagnostic report with recommendations). It distinguishes itself from sibling getter tools like 'get_system_health' by emphasizing comprehensiveness and active diagnostics.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_status_dashboard' or 'get_component_status'. It does not include when-not-to-use scenarios or mention any prerequisites or context for invocation.

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