health_check

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states 'Reports' implying read-only, but does not explicitly confirm no side effects, nor does it mention any prerequisites, rate limits, or scoping details. For a health check tool, the lack of explicit read-only hint or safety guarantees is a gap.

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?

Two short sentences with no redundant information. The first sentence identifies the tool's purpose, and the second lists the report contents. Every word earns its place.

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 simple, parameterless tool without an output schema, the description covers the essential actions (health check) and outputs (issues, files, recommendations). It is slightly incomplete in not explaining the scope (all conversations or specific) or whether it is safe to run frequently, but it is sufficient for basic usage.

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 description coverage is 100%. The description adds context by naming the subject ('Claude Code conversations') and the output categories, which goes beyond the empty schema. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4.

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 performs a 'Quick health check of Claude Code conversations' and specifies the outputs: 'total issues, largest files, and recommendations.' The name 'health_check' matches the action, and it differentiates from sibling tools by being a general diagnostic rather than a specific action like archive or cleanup.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as run_doctor, check_alerts, or estimate_context_size. The description only states what the tool does, not the context or exclusion criteria.

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