repo_health

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It transparently lists what it checks and the output structure (score, component checks, recommendations). However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or non-destructive, which is implied but not confirmed.

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 efficient: two paragraphs for purpose and a brief Args section. It front-loads the goal and key checks. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points), but overall no extraneous content.

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 no output schema, the description adequately covers return values (dict with score, component checks, counts, largest_files, recommendations). It explains all checks and parameters. Minor omission: no example score range or clarification on 'concrete recommendations'.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description's 'Args' section adds critical meaning beyond the schema. It explains 'path' as filesystem path to repo root and 'large_file_threshold' as line count threshold for large files. This is helpful, though could specify expected format (e.g., absolute vs relative).

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 ('Give') and clearly states it produces an overall health score with supporting evidence. It lists explicit checks (README, LICENSE, test suite, Git, TODO density, oversized files) and differentiates from siblings like find_large_files or find_todos, which focus on single aspects.

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 implies usage for obtaining a repository health score but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like find_large_files or git_log_summary. No when-not-to guidance is provided.

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