hyperd.health.check

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

No annotations exist, so description bears full burden. It discloses no side effects (free, no wallet), but doesn't detail potential error behaviors or rate limits. For a health check, this is adequate; the tool is read-only and safe.

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, no fluff. Each piece of information (what it checks, cost) earns its place. Front-loaded with the action 'Check the health' and specific 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?

Description covers what the tool checks and that it's free, but lacks output schema. Without one, the agent doesn't know the response format. For completeness, it could mention that it returns a health status object. Still, it's adequate for a simple health check.

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?

Input schema has zero parameters (100% coverage trivially). Description adds value by explaining what the tool returns, which goes beyond the empty schema. It compensates well for the lack of parameters.

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 it checks health of the hyperD API, listing specific components (network, payment facilitator, backend keys, cache stats). It distinguishes from siblings like hyperd.balance.get or hyperd.pricing.get which serve different purposes.

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?

Description indicates it is free and requires no wallet, making it clear for diagnostic use. While it doesn't explicitly list when not to use, the context implies it's for health checks, not data retrieval. Sibling tools provide alternatives for specific queries.

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