pol_quick_health

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

The description discloses that it runs a full check internally but returns only a subset of data (summary). It lists the output fields and mentions the template parameter, providing good behavioral context given no annotations.

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 concise, with a clear header, two explanatory sentences, and a bulleted list of args and returns. Every sentence adds value 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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers what the tool does and returns. However, more detail on the output structure (e.g., exact fields) could enhance completeness.

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 description explains the one parameter 'template' as a template name with a default value, adding meaning beyond the bare schema. With 0% schema description coverage, this compensates well.

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 it provides a quick health summary, returning checksum and status. It implies a lighter version compared to siblings like pol_check, effectively distinguishing its 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 description implies usage for a quick summary but does not explicitly mention when to use it versus alternatives like pol_check or pol_report. No exclusions or selection criteria are provided.

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