healthcheck

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description goes well beyond them: it discloses the tiered severity model, that results are served through the preflight cache so 'stable posture may come from the last assessment,' and that a firmware change injects a 'firmware-delta' finding. It also flags the single most valuable finding (recovery-path), which meaningfully changes how an agent should interpret 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?

Content is front-loaded (purpose, then read-only, then return shape, then caching caveat) and each sentence carries real information. Minor waste in issue references (#80, #225) that mean nothing to an agent and a slightly verbose framing.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by describing the return shape (per-check findings, tiered severity), the standout field (recovery-path), and the cache-driven caveat (firmware-delta, stale posture). Nothing an agent needs to call and interpret this read-only audit is missing.

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?

The single 'profile' parameter is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), including its config.toml origin and the KVM_PILOT_PROFILE default, and the description adds nothing about it. Per the high-coverage rule, baseline 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 gives a specific verb ('Audit') and enumerates the resources covered (readiness/recovery, security posture, firmware), which is far more informative than the generic name 'healthcheck'. It does not explicitly contrast itself with near-neighbors such as firmware_check, info, or capabilities, so the sibling distinction is only implicit.

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?

It clearly states the operative context: a CRITICAL finding 'is what should gate a subsequent destructive op,' which tells the agent when this tool is relevant. However, it names no alternative tool and states no when-not-to-use conditions, so the routing guidance is contextual rather than explicit.

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