project_health

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load. It discloses the observable facets (git state, deps, env files), which implies a read-only inspection, but it omits cost/side-effect traits an agent would want: that it shells out to git and may probe dependency installation (potentially slow), and how it behaves if repo_path is not a git repo.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and scope, with the three checked facets compactly enumerated. No filler, nothing to cut.

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?

For a one-parameter, read-only snapshot tool with no output schema, the description usefully serves as a partial return-value summary. But it leaves repo_path semantics and failure behavior undefined, which are the main things an agent needs in order to call it correctly.

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 single parameter repo_path has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate — and it says nothing about it. No indication of whether the path must be absolute, whether it must be a git root or any subdirectory, or whether a missing/invalid path errors out gracefully.

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?

Uses a specific verb plus resource ("Get a health snapshot of a project") and enumerates the concrete facets checked: git cleanliness/ahead-behind, dependency installation, env file presence. That makes the operation unambiguous, but it never contrasts itself with the plausible sibling look-alikes (project_info, project_detect), leaving the agent to infer which one covers health vs. general metadata.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. Usage is only implied by the enumerated contents — an agent can reason that this is the diagnostic call, but nothing tells it when project_info or run_tests would be the better choice instead.

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