check_documentation_health

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool 'Returns a report with issues and a health score,' which adds some behavioral context about output. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, side effects, or error handling. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient to fully understand its behavior.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences that are front-loaded and efficient. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second describes the output, with no wasted words. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating purpose and parameters.

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 the complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It explains the purpose and output but lacks parameter details, usage guidelines, and behavioral traits. Without annotations or an output schema, more context is needed to fully understand the tool's operation and results.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides no information about the parameters 'path' and 'basePath', such as their meanings, formats, or usage. The description adds no value beyond what the schema provides, failing to address the coverage gap.

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 of the documentation by analyzing frontmatter, links, and navigation.' It specifies the verb ('check'), resource ('documentation'), and scope ('frontmatter, links, and navigation'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'validate_documentation_links' or 'validate_documentation_metadata', which perform similar validation tasks.

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, context, or exclusions, nor does it reference sibling tools like 'validate_documentation_links' or 'validate_documentation_metadata' that might overlap in functionality. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

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