health_check

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

No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. It explicitly declares 'Read-only — never writes,' and describes the return format in detail (header counts, issue lines, anomaly lines). This gives full transparency on behavior and 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 well-structured with purpose first, then usage guidance, then behavioral note, then output format. Every sentence adds value, though slightly verbose. Could be trimmed slightly but earns its place.

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 4 optional parameters, no required, and no output schema, the description adequately explains the tool's function and return format. It covers the main use case and output structure. Lacks error/edge case details but is sufficient for a health check 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. It uses the parameter concepts implicitly (scope) but does not elaborate on syntax or format beyond 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 verb ('Run a single read-only sweep'), resource ('every secret in the requested scope'), and output ('counts of healthy/stale/expired secrets plus any current audit anomalies'). It distinguishes from siblings by naming `check_project`, `detect_anomalies`, and `agent_scan`, giving specific differentiators.

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?

Explicitly says to use as default 'is everything OK?' command and provides clear when-not-to-use: prefer `check_project` for manifest compliance, `detect_anomalies` for audit-only, `agent_scan` for multi-project JSON. This provides strong guidance on alternatives.

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