ecosystem_summary_health

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 does the most important thing: disclosing that the call has a write side effect by default (saves a new report) and how to suppress it. It does not mention permissions, idempotency, or whether repeated calls create duplicate reports, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 tight sentences with no filler, and the primary output (the markdown and its coverage dimensions) is front-loaded before the side-effect caveat. Formatting with a blank-line break is slightly odd but harmless.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described, and the description covers the essential behavior an agent must know (default report-saving side effect). Only the absence of routing guidance against the many sibling summary tools keeps it from being fully complete.

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 description coverage is 100% for both parameters, so the schema already documents author and save_report. The description restates the save_report default and opt-out, matching rather than extending the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: produces a platform self-check markdown covering profile, scan, tag coverage and archive ratio. This distinguishes it reasonably well from sibling summaries (ecosystem_summary_by_tag, ecosystem_summary_top_n, ecosystem_summary_weekly), though it never explicitly names those alternatives.

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?

Usage is only implied — it reads like a diagnostic/health report tool, and the note about save_report=False gives a conditional usage pattern. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. the other ecosystem_summary_* siblings, nor any prerequisite or exclusion guidance.

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