health

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does well by specifying what criteria are analyzed and the output grading scale (A-F), giving an agent a concrete sense of what the tool computes and returns. It does not mention side effects, but the nature of a health score strongly implies a read-only analysis.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose (global health score) and then provides concrete detail. Every phrase adds value without redundancy.

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 parameterless tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the return value (letter grade A-F) and the key input factors. It could be slightly more explicit about whether the output includes detailed breakdowns or just the single grade, but overall it is complete enough for an agent to invoke 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?

This tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter information missing. The baseline of 4 for a parameterless tool applies, and the description does not need to compensate for any schema gaps.

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 produces a global project health score and lists the specific factors it evaluates (broken imports, orphan files, circular dependencies, high-risk files). This provides a specific resource and output format, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools by name.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like status, dependencies, or check. The description implies it is for assessing overall project health, but no explicit usage conditions, alternatives, or exclusions are given.

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