ecosystem_summary_health

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It fails to mention that the tool potentially saves a report (as implied by the save_report parameter defaulting to true) or the fact that output is markdown. The description is too sparse to inform an agent about side effects or persistence.

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 sentence, front-loading the core purpose. It is efficient with no wasted words, though it sacrifices clarity for brevity.

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?

The description lacks important context: it does not explain what 'profile / scan / tag coverage / archive ratio' entails, what the output looks like (despite an output schema existing), or the implications of the save_report parameter. For a self-check tool, more detail is needed to ensure proper use.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (author and save_report) and their defaults. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters; it focuses on the report content. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states 'Platform self-check markdown: profile / scan / tag coverage / archive ratio.', indicating it produces a health report, but the verb is implicit and the scope is vague. It does not clearly distinguish from sibling ecosystem_summary_ tools like ecosystem_summary_by_tag or ecosystem_scan_status, which may overlap.

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 (e.g., ecosystem_scan for scanning or ecosystem_summary_weekly for periodic summaries). There is no mention of prerequisites, expected use cases, or exclusions.

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