jev_health

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool reports availability, implying a read-only check, but does not disclose whether it makes network calls, how long it might take, or any failure semantics. This is adequate for a simple health check but lacks context that would help an agent set expectations.

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, information-dense sentence. It conveys the exact purpose without any fluff, and the resource scope is clearly front-loaded. This is appropriately concise.

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 is simple (no parameters, a clear purpose, and an output schema that presumably documents the return format). The description adequately covers what the tool does. It lacks explicit guidance on when to call it, but given the simplicity and the existence of an output schema, this is a minor gap. The description is complete enough for an agent to use 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the description need not explain parameter semantics. The baseline of 4 applies. The description does not add extra detail beyond the schema (which is empty), but with no parameters, nothing further is required.

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 verb ('Report') and a clear resource (availability of the Open-Jev server and Ollama planner model). It fully distinguishes this tool from siblings like jev_ask, jev_plan, and jev_analyze, which perform distinct actions. There is no ambiguity.

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 description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. While it is implicitly a prerequisite check for the other tools, this is not stated. An agent is left to infer that it should be called before other operations, which is a notable omission for a zero-parameter tool that is likely part of a workflow.

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