health

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it only checks enabled backends, shows availability/loaded models/usage stats/cost savings, and returns specific JSON structure. It doesn't mention rate limits or authentication requirements, but covers most operational aspects.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, constraints, usage scenarios, return format), front-loads the core purpose, and every sentence adds value without redundancy. The bulleted lists enhance readability without wasting space.

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's diagnostic nature, 0 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema (implied by the detailed 'Returns' section), the description provides complete context: purpose, constraints, usage guidelines, and detailed return structure, making it fully self-contained for agent understanding.

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?

With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline would be 4. The description appropriately notes there are no parameters by not discussing any, which is correct for this parameterless tool.

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 specific action ('Check health status') and resources ('Delia and all configured GPU backends'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'queue_status' or 'get_model_info_tool' by focusing on system-wide health rather than specific queue or model details.

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 'WHEN TO USE' section explicitly lists four scenarios for using this tool, including verifying backend availability before delegation and diagnosing connection issues, providing clear guidance on when to select this tool over alternatives.

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