check_relayer_health

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses key behaviors: polling interval/timeout, per-component status reporting, degraded state handling, Docker context auto-detection with host override, and the OIDC caveat for HostIO. This gives the agent a complete understanding of side effects and edge cases.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every clause adds value—polling details, status reporting, degraded state, and host detection. No fluff or redundancy is present.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (per-component status, unhealthy components named) and important caveats (degraded monitoring stack, HostIO unknown until OIDC). It covers the essential information an agent needs to invoke and interpret the tool correctly.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with detailed parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema by specifying the polling interval (10s) and timeout (300s), and explaining the impact of the polling behavior on the 'poll' parameter. It also reinforces the default ports and host override, adding nuance not fully captured in schema.

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 begins with a specific action ('Check the health') and enumerates the exact resources (UI on port 8888, S3 gateway on 9000, HostIO, and monitoring sidecars). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_prerequisites or check_claim_status, which target different concerns.

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?

It provides clear context on when to use the tool (health checks during/after installation) and important conditional behavior (degraded monitoring stack does not block install flow). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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