backlog_health

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the semantic definition of `stale_days` ('days without an update'), which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about result size, pagination, or scope limits beyond that.

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?

Two tight sentences that front-load the output shape before the parameter gloss. 'X-ray' is a minor flourish but doesn't cost clarity; every clause carries 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?

With an output schema present, return values need no prose, and annotations cover the read-only safety profile. What remains is a partially documented second parameter, which is a small but real gap for a two-parameter analytical tool.

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 bears the burden. It defines `stale_days` clearly but leaves `sample_size` (which presumably controls how many stalled tickets are returned) entirely unexplained in both schema and description. Partial compensation, hence a 3.

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 names a specific resource and output ('counts by status and priority, plus the most stalled tickets'), so an agent knows exactly what this tool produces. It does not, however, distinguish itself from analytical siblings like agent_workload or security_overview, so the sibling differentiation is left 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?

Usage is implied by 'open backlog' and 'stalled tickets' — an agent can infer this is for backlog triage — but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or named alternative tool. Nothing misleads, but the agent must infer the routing itself.

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