get_aria_health

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, non-destructive, idempotent. Description adds that endpoint returns 503 when offline and lists returned fields. No contradictions.

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 paragraphs with key info front-loaded. Uses [READ] tag. Only essential sentences, 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?

Simple tool with one param and no output schema, but description lists all return fields and status behavior. Provides enough context for correct invocation and interpretation.

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?

Single optional 'target' parameter explained as 'Aria Operations target name from config' with default behavior. Schema coverage 0% but description fully compensates for this param.

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?

Clear verb 'Check' and resource 'Aria Operations platform node status'. Distinguishes from sibling 'get_resource_health' by specifying it's for the platform node overall, not individual resources. Returns specific fields.

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?

Explicit use case: 'verify Aria Operations is functioning before investigating monitoring blind spots'. Notes per-service breakdown not exposed, implying when NOT to use. Could explicitly mention sibling alternatives for service-level health.

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