hcl_health_check

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety behavior is covered. The description adds a useful limitation that carrier state does not prove cabling and health remains unknown, but it does not discuss timeout behavior, permissions, or output characteristics.

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 definition is two short sentences and front-loads the core action before adding a caveat about interpretation. There is no filler or redundant restatement of annotation details.

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?

For a four-parameter tool with no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too thin. It omits parameter meaning, expected output shape, and practical context for timeout or IPv6 inclusion.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention project_path, topology, include_ipv6, or timeout_seconds. With four undocumented parameters, the description does nothing to compensate for the missing schema semantics.

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 read operation over a defined target: interface anomalies and repeated addresses from staged running guests. It is clearer than a generic health check, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby inspection tools such as hcl_verify_connectivity or hcl_inspect_ports.

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?

It implies the tool is for checking staged running guests, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or when-not-to-use conditions. No alternative sibling tools are named, so an agent must infer routing from the purpose sentence alone.

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