llm_health

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. 'Check the health status' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not confirm idempotency, mention timeouts, or describe the response format. However, the operation is straightforward, and the output schema (present but not shown) likely handles return structure.

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 extremely concise (one sentence, 13 words). It could benefit from a brief sentence on use case or output, but it is not verbose. It loses a point for being too terse where more context might help.

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 zero parameters and the presence of an output schema (which likely documents return values), the description covers the core purpose. However, it could mention that the tool aggregates status across all providers or indicate typical response fields briefly.

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, and schema description coverage is 100% (trivially). Since there are no parameters to describe, the description adds nothing beyond what the schema provides. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4.

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 'Check the health status of all configured LLM providers.' It uses a specific verb ('check'), resource ('health status'), and scope ('all configured LLM providers'). This clearly distinguishes it from other llm_* tools like llm_providers (which likely lists providers) and llm_analyze (which performs analysis).

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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it explain prerequisites or context. For example, it could advise using this tool before making LLM calls to verify connectivity, but it does not.

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