get_heal_status

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 'status and failures' but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, or what the output format entails. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's 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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 tool has 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists, the description is minimally complete. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects and usage context, which are important for a tool that might interact with healing processes. The output schema helps, but the description could be more informative.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not add parameter details, which is appropriate, but it could have elaborated on implicit inputs or context. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as it adequately handles 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 the verb 'Get' and the resource 'auto-heal status and failures', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'clear_heal_failures' or 'sync_status', which could have related functions, so it misses full sibling differentiation.

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. With siblings like 'clear_heal_failures' and 'sync_status' that might relate to healing or status checks, there is no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions for usage.

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