project_health_check

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

With no annotations, the description lists all detected issues and mentions the return format (structured JSON with errors/warnings/stats). It implies no side effects and is transparent about what the tool checks.

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 concise, front-loaded with the action, and efficiently lists detections and output format without unnecessary words.

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 diagnostic tool, the description covers what it checks and mentions the return format. It lacks details on runtime expectations but is largely complete given the simple parameter and no output schema.

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?

Coverage is 100% (only one parameter with schema description). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's 'Path to the Godot project directory', so baseline of 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 clearly states the tool runs a comprehensive diagnostic check on a Godot project, lists specific detections (broken scenes, scripts, resources, etc.), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like validate_scene or validate_script that 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 mentions it's essential before shipping or after large refactors, providing clear when-to-use context. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use.

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