hygiene

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses that passes are self-triggering, names the three trigger conditions, scopes the mutation to 'only ever change a node's layer', and explicitly states the change is reversible. That is precisely the safety-relevant context an agent needs before calling with force=true.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the report contents before the behavioral mechanics and the force override. Every clause earns its place — counts, timing, due state, projection, triggers, mutation scope, reversibility — with no filler.

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 no output schema, the description usefully compensates by enumerating the report's contents, and it fully explains the one non-obvious parameter. It stops short of describing the report's structure or any permission/auth requirements, but for a two-parameter read-mostly tool this is close to complete.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema, and the description's '`force=true` runs one now' largely restates the schema's own wording. It adds no format, default, or interaction detail beyond what is structured, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 verb and resource ('Hygiene status for an initiative') and enumerates exactly what the report contains: node and core counts, last pass time, due status, and projected next-pass movement. It is unambiguous on its own, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with nearby siblings such as `lint` or `policy`.

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?

It explains that passes run automatically (on write accumulation, core threshold, or sweep timer) and that `force=true` triggers one now, which gives the agent context for the force flag. However, it never states when to reach for this tool versus `lint`, `overview`, or `history`, so the base read use case is only implied.

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