audit_feature_health

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

There are no annotations, but the description carries the full behavioral burden well. It states the traversal behavior, default exclusion of healthy features, what is returned in the envelope, and why the health state might not match the API/BREP appearance.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: purpose, usage trigger, gotcha, parameters, and return envelope are structured and front-loaded. No filler or redundancy.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description gives the exact return envelope, summary counters, and per-feature fields. It also ties the tool to the broader edit-verify workflow, so an agent can reliably decide when and how to invoke it.

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 0%, but the description fully compensates: component_name is explained as restricting to a component while still recursing, and include_healthy is explained as including state 0 features or defaulting to broken-features-only.

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 identifies a specific verb-resource pair: sweep the feature tree and report features whose healthState != 0. It distinguishes this as a diagnostic/audit tool, not an editing or transform tool.

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 explicitly states when to call it: after ANY tool that edits sketch geometry, user parameters, or features. It also gives a concrete decision rule based on summary.failed > 0 or summary.warning > 0, including a real-world gotcha about stale Fusion UI cache.

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