analyze-project-health

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, which are consistent with the description. The description adds valuable context: the analysis may take time and to use get-project-health after. It does not conflict with annotations. No annotation contradiction.

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 two sentences with no superfluous information. It is front-loaded with the core action and immediately follows with usage guidance. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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 the tool is a simple trigger with one parameter and an output schema exists, the description covers the key points: when to use, what to expect (delay), and what to do next. It could mention if there's an immediate response or an analysis ID, but this is adequately handled by the 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the description merely restates the parameter's purpose ('The ID of the project to analyze'). No additional details like format or constraints beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score 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 action ('Trigger a new health analysis') and the resource ('a project'). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'get-project-health' by indicating that this triggers a new analysis, while 'get-project-health' retrieves results.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'when the health data is stale or you want a fresh assessment.' It also references the sibling tool 'get-project-health' for follow-up. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools, but the guidance is clear and actionable.

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