get-project-health

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the tool is safe and non-destructive. The description adds value by warning about potentially large output for projects with many tasks, which is behavior beyond annotations.

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 clear structure: first sentence states purpose and outputs, second sentence gives usage guidance. No redundant information.

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 covers the main functionality and parameter usage. Given there is an output schema (not shown), return values need not be described. It lacks prerequisites like needing a valid projectId, but that is implied.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds context about includeContext meaning 'full detail including task data', but does not substantially extend beyond the schema.

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 retrieves a comprehensive health assessment for a project, specifying the health statuses and optional detailed context. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'analyze-project-health' by emphasizing the comprehensive nature and optional includeContext parameter.

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 provides explicit usage guidance for the includeContext parameter ('Use includeContext=true for full detail including task data.') but does not explain when to choose this tool over the similar sibling 'analyze-project-health' or when not to use it.

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