analyze-project-health

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context about the asynchronous nature: 'The analysis may take time to complete.' This goes beyond the annotations by telling the agent to expect a delay and to poll get-project-health for results.

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 zero waste. It front-loads the action, then adds usage guidance and a timing caveat. Every word earns its place.

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 single-parameter, non-destructive tool with an output schema and a clear sibling for retrieval, the description covers the trigger condition, the async nature, and the follow-up step. It is complete for the tool's complexity.

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%: the single parameter projectId is fully described in the schema with 'The ID of the project to analyze. This triggers a new health analysis which may take some time to complete.' The tool description does not add further parameter semantics, so the baseline of 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?

The description clearly states the action: 'Trigger a new health analysis for a project.' It uses a specific verb (trigger) and resource (project health), distinguishing it from siblings like get-project-health which retrieves results. The purpose is unambiguous.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this when the health data is stale or you want a fresh assessment.' It also names the alternative follow-up tool: 'use get-project-health afterward to see updated results.' This is strong guidance for selection and invocation.

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