get-project-health

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

Annotations already indicate a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds behavioral context by naming the returned status values and optional contextual detail, but it does not disclose potential performance implications, rate limits, or other operational caveats beyond what the schema already notes about large output.

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, front-loaded with the primary action and output, and the second sentence gives useful parameter guidance without redundancy.

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 rich annotations, 100% parameter coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It lacks alt-tool guidance for 'analyze-project-health', but that is primarily covered by the usage guidelines dimension; otherwise the description adequately supports correct use.

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 parameters are already well documented. The description adds minimal parameter-related value beyond what the schema provides; 'includeContext=true for full detail' is essentially restated in 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 performs a health assessment for a project and lists key outputs: completion progress and health status values. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tool 'analyze-project-health', which may serve a similar purpose.

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 only usage guidance is the parameter-level instruction 'Use includeContext=true for that full detail.' The description does not state when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'analyze-project-health', 'get-project-activity-stats', or 'get-productivity-stats'.

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