System Health Check

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the action and does not disclose whether the health check is read-only, whether it runs plugin-specific commands, what side effects may occur, or how to interpret a failed health check.

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 terse sentence with no filler, and the key verb and object are front-loaded. It is efficient but leans toward being under-specified rather than helpfully structured.

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?

With zero parameters and an output schema present, the basic invocation is clear: call system_health_check with no arguments and receive a result. However, with no annotations and no behavioral or usage detail, the description is only minimally adequate for a broad system-level 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 has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain; the zero-parameter baseline is 4. The phrase 'all plugins' adds scope context, and no argument details are needed.

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 states a specific action ('perform health check') and a clear target ('all plugins'). It distinguishes itself from sibling per-service status tools like nginx_status and docker_info by covering all plugins at once, though 'plugins' is not explicitly defined.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling diagnostics such as service_status, docker_info, or get_summary. No prerequisites, exclusions, or preferred usage context are mentioned, so the agent must infer selection from the name and title.

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