check_scihub_mirrors

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool checks health status, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify what 'health status' entails (e.g., uptime, response time), whether it's cached or real-time, or any rate limits. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a single, clear sentence: 'Check the health status of all Sci-Hub mirror sites.' It's front-loaded with the core purpose, has zero wasted words, and is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the health check returns (e.g., a list of mirrors with statuses), how results are formatted, or any behavioral nuances. For a tool that likely outputs structured data, this leaves the agent guessing about the tool's full functionality.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'forceCheck' well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, as it mentions no parameters. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to.

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 tool's purpose: 'Check the health status of all Sci-Hub mirror sites.' It specifies the verb ('check') and resource ('Sci-Hub mirror sites'), distinguishing it from sibling tools focused on searching or downloading papers. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_platform_status,' which might be a related sibling, so it's not a perfect 5.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, timing, or comparisons with siblings like 'get_platform_status' or 'search_scihub,' leaving the agent to infer usage based on the name alone. This lack of explicit context reduces its helpfulness.

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