black_souls_health

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, making the non-destructive nature clear. The description adds that the tool provides 'diagnosis and recommended recovery action,' implying a read-only analysis. However, it does not elaborate on side effects, prerequisites, or edge cases, so it adds only modest value beyond annotations.

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 sentence that succinctly captures the tool's purpose and output. It is front-loaded with no redundant or extraneous content, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description is largely complete. It explains the core function and expected return (diagnosis and action). However, it could briefly clarify the domain context (e.g., what 'bridge' refers to) to aid agent comprehension without burdening the schema.

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 no parameters, so the description provides no parameter details—which is appropriate. With 0 parameters, a baseline of 4 is justified as no further semantic explanation is 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 clearly states the tool performs a 'bridge health check with diagnosis and recommended recovery action.' This differentiates it from siblings like black_souls_status (general status) and action-oriented tools. However, it does not explicitly contrast with similar read tools, and the term 'bridge' is left unexplained.

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 black_souls_status or black_souls_get_state. The description lacks contextual cues for appropriate invocation, leaving the agent to infer usage without explicit boundaries.

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