health

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'self-healing' and actions like restart/cleanup, implying mutating behavior, but does not disclose potential destructive consequences, permission requirements, or what 'restart' entails. The description does not go beyond what a reader would infer from the action names.

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 just two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the action list. Every phrase contributes meaning, with no filler or redundancy.

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?

The tool has four optional parameters and no output schema or annotations, so the description needs to provide sufficient context. It gives a solid high-level overview but omits details like what 'restart' actually does, what 'tools' refers to, and whether the tool returns a report. The schema covers parameter specifics, but the description is not fully complete for a self-healing 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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage of all four parameters with detailed descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of action names adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's already-documented definitions of check, restart, and cleanup.

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 performs a 'system check + self-healing' covering DB integrity, tools, memory, and semaphore, and lists actions check/restart/cleanup. This distinguishes it from many sibling tools focused on code analysis, though it does not explicitly contrast with overlapping tools like 'gc' or 'reindex'.

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 alternatives such as 'gc' or 'config_drift'. The action list implies some usage context, but there are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or alternative tool mentions.

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