facelink_health

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

With no annotations, the description alone must convey behavioral traits such as read-only safety, side effects, or behavior when instance_id is null, but none of this is stated. 'Check' weakly implies a read operation, but the description does not disclose what happens to the connection, what capabilities are probed, or any error behavior.

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, front-loaded sentence of nine words with no filler or redundancy. It communicates the core purpose immediately, which is appropriate for a simple health-check tool.

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 low complexity and an output schema, so return-value details are not required, but the description still lacks usage guidance and behavioral context. It is minimally viable for selecting the tool, but an agent would have to infer when to call it and what optional-instance_id omission implies.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description needed to explain instance_id, but it only says 'one FaceLink Blender instance.' It does not clarify that the parameter is optional, what null/default means, or how the instance_id is used. The schema provides type/default, but the description adds little semantic value.

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 uses a specific verb ('Check') and names the resource ('connectivity and capabilities for one FaceLink Blender instance'), making the tool's scope clear. This also distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_blender_instances or get_blender_job, which cover different facets.

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 wording implies this is a health/capability check for one specific instance, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use it, no prerequisites (e.g., obtaining instance_id via list_blender_instances), and no exclusions versus sibling tools. The context is only implicit.

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