dev_health

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does convey that the tool is non-mutating (a 'check' that produces a score and issues), implying a read-only operation, but it stops short of explicitly stating side-effect-free behavior, performance implications, or what happens if the workspace doesn't exist. It also doesn't describe the structure of the 'issues and recommendations' it returns, though an output schema is present. The overall intent is clear, but some behavioral specifics are left to inference.

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, densely informative sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Full environment health check') and immediately enumerates the covered areas. Every element earns its place—no filler, no repetition. It is compact while conveying both scope and outcome, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.

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?

The description provides a good high-level overview of functionality and output, and the presence of an output schema relieves it of fully explaining return values. However, it omits any guidance on the `workspace` parameter (its purpose and valid values), which is necessary for correct invocation. It also doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., must be inside a project) or how to interpret the health score beyond 'issues and recommendations'. For a tool that combines many aspects, these gaps are moderate, leaving the description slightly incomplete.

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?

There is one parameter, `workspace` (default '.'), and the schema provides zero description coverage (0%). The tool description never mentions this parameter or explains its meaning (e.g., directory path, project root). Although the name is somewhat self-explanatory and there is a sensible default, the description fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation. The agent is left to infer what value to pass, which is a notable gap for a parameter that affects the scope of the health check.

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 a specific verb ('health check') applied to the environment, lists the concrete aspects it combines (project detection, runtime versions, dependency state, services, ports, Git state), and defines the single 0-100 health_score output. It unambiguously distinguishes itself from narrower sibling tools like dev_dependencies or dev_services by being a 'Full environment health check' that aggregates many dimensions.

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 a comprehensive, one-stop check by explicitly enumerating what it covers, which signals when to use it (when a holistic overview is needed). However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives (e.g., 'use dev_dependencies for dependency-only checks') nor call out situations where a narrower tool is preferred. This is clear context without exclusions, so a 4 is appropriate.

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