se_health

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds behavioral detail about what health metrics are checked (CPU, memory, disk, connectivity), which goes 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with [READ] tag. Every sentence adds value: first states purpose and scope, second provides usage guidance. No fluff.

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?

With no parameters and good annotations, the description covers purpose, usage context, and specific metrics. It could be slightly more detailed (e.g., whether results are per-SE or aggregated), but has output schema to cover return values.

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?

No parameters in input schema, so schema coverage is 100%. Description does not need to explain parameters. Baseline score of 4 for zero-parameter tools.

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?

Explicitly states 'Check health of all Service Engines' and lists specific metrics (CPU, memory, disk, connectivity). Clearly distinguishes from siblings like 'se_list' (list SEs) and 'vs_status' (VS health) by focusing on SE-level health checks.

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?

Provides clear usage context: 'Use when VS health degrades to check if the issue is at the SE level.' This tells the agent when to use this tool, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or list alternatives.

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