as_report_health

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds valuable behavioral context: what data is aggregated, that the report is markdown, and the return format (JSON with markdown and structured data). No contradictions with 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 at four lines, front-loaded with purpose, and uses bullet points for aggregation details. Args/Returns are clearly marked. Minor verbosity in the aggregation list, but overall efficient.

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 moderate complexity and annotations covering safety, the description provides sufficient context. It explains the report content and return type. The output schema existence (per context signal) reduces the need for detailed return description, but a brief note on the JSON structure would 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 single parameter (params.project_dir) is described in the schema as optional. The tool description adds that it optionally includes project metadata, clarifying its effect. With schema coverage effectively 0% (based on context signal), the description compensates well but could be more explicit about how the report changes with a project_dir.

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 produces a comprehensive markdown health report of the dev environment. It lists specific aggregated components (installation status, SDK packages, devices, AVDs, optional project metadata). The verb 'Produce' and resource 'health report' are specific, and it distinguishes from siblings by its unique focus on environment health.

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 health checking and mentions optional project inclusion, but does not explicitly specify when to use vs alternative tools. Since no sibling performs a similar comprehensive report, the lack of exclusions is acceptable. Clear enough for intended purpose.

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