health_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions returning ingest status and data quality checks, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, rate limits, or what the output format looks like. The description is minimal and lacks essential operational context.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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's moderate complexity (2 parameters, output schema exists), the description is incomplete. While the output schema may cover return values, the description lacks parameter explanations and behavioral context. It provides a basic purpose but doesn't fully equip an agent to use the tool effectively without relying heavily on schema inspection.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It provides no information about the two parameters ('detail' and 'sample_limit'), their purposes, or how they affect the returned health report. The description fails to add any parameter semantics beyond the bare 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's purpose with a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('ingest status plus data quality checks for WebSocket payloads'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'ingest_status' by adding data quality checks, but doesn't explicitly contrast with all relevant siblings like 'analyze_websocket_session' or 'repair_websocket_messages'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'ingest_status', 'analyze_websocket_session', and 'repair_websocket_messages', the description lacks context about when this health report is appropriate versus other analysis or repair tools.

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