healthCheck

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

The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. It implies a diagnostic operation but doesn't specify what 'availability' means, response format, or any rate limits. With annotations covering safety, this earns a baseline score for adding some purpose context without contradiction.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple, parameterless tool and is front-loaded with clear intent.

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, read-only annotation), the description is minimally adequate but lacks output information. Without an output schema, it should ideally hint at what the health check returns, leaving some contextual gaps for the agent.

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 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 4 as the schema fully documents the empty input. The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter gaps, and it appropriately doesn't mention parameters.

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 session and service availability ('检查当前会话与服务可用性'), which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'getProducts' or 'initZentao' that might also provide system status information, preventing a perfect score.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no explicit instructions about when/when-not to use it, nor references to sibling tools for comparison, leaving the agent without contextual usage information.

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