Last recorded repo-health snapshot

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those: the result is stale by design ('not current state'), the lock file can aggregate three different snapshot commands, and it suggests comparing against the working tree via the CLI. This gives the agent an accurate mental model of what the tool returns.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, and every subsequent sentence adds essential context: staleness, file-read equivalence, multi-command lock behavior, and live-check alternatives. It is dense but not bloated, with no wasted words.

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 tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description covers all necessary operational context: what the result represents, how it differs from a live check, which siblings to prefer, and a direct-file alternative. Nothing critical for selecting and invoking this tool correctly is missing.

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 no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify about parameters. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, a 4 is appropriate; the description does not need to compensate for undocumented parameters because none exist.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and identifies the exact resource ('.rrt/health.lock.toml') plus the result type ('health check results'). It also distinguishes this tool from siblings by explicitly noting it reflects the last snapshot-writing run, not current state, which separates it from live-check tools like rrt_doctor.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: use this tool for the last recorded snapshot, and use rrt_doctor, rrt_eol, or rrt_folder_check for a live check of a specific part. It even notes that reading the file directly is equivalent and warns that the lock can combine results from three commands, preventing misuse.

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