Lens API Health Check

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

There are no annotations, so the description fully carries the burden of disclosure. It states that no auth is required and that it returns status and version, and the verb 'check' clearly implies a non-mutating read-only operation. It could additionally mention timeouts or error behavior, but for a simple health check the provided transparency is solid.

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 three short sentences, each carrying distinct value: what the tool does, what it returns, and its authentication requirement. No extraneous words or repetition.

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?

For a zero-parameter health-check tool with no output schema, the description covers all essentials: purpose, return content (status and version), and auth. There are no missing details that would prevent an agent from invoking it correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema is trivially 100% covered. With no parameters to document, the description does not need to provide additional semantics, so the baseline score of 4 applies.

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 a specific verb ('Check if') and a specific resource ('the Soulfield Lens API service'), and tells what it returns. This distinguishes it sharply from all sibling tools, which deal with content validation, PII scrubbing, or lens consistency.

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 tool's purpose is self-evident as a health check, so the context for use is clear: verify that the Soulfield Lens API is up and responsive. It does not explicitly discuss alternatives or exclusions, but there are no similar sibling tools that could be confused with this one.

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