get_project_health

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the operation is read-oriented ('Get'), specifies that only active projects are included, and describes the return shape in detail. It does not cover error behavior or rate limits, but these are not critical for a zero-parameter read tool.

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 well-organized, front-loads the core purpose, and uses short line breaks for different aspects: purpose, per-project fields, and return container. Every sentence adds useful information with no repetition.

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, no-output-schema tool, this description is complete: it explains the purpose, the exact per-project fields, the return structure, and how it consolidates alternative query patterns. An agent has enough information to invoke and interpret the result correctly.

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, so there is nothing to document. The description instead explains what the response contains, which is the relevant semantic information for this tool.

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?

Clearly states the verb and resource: 'Get project health data for stalled-project detection.' It also lists the specific fields returned and positions the tool as an aggregation over multiple query patterns, distinguishing it from sibling data tools.

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?

Gives a clear use context: stalled-project detection, and explicitly notes that one call replaces the get_projects + get_logbook + per-project todo queries pattern. It does not, however, contrast it with siblings like get_dashboard or get_review_data, so it lacks explicit when-not guidance.

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