Info

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only a conceptual Ops/health framing and a discovery exclusion, not operational behaviors like scoping or result characteristics.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the key purpose, and the exclusion is in parentheses so the core message is immediate. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 simple optional-parameter tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description gives enough positioning: Ops/health, sources and registry, not the discovery path. A small gap is the meaning of 'workspace' and what 'sources and registry' refer to, but the schema and output schema fill part of that.

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% and the description does not mention the optional 'workspace' parameter or how it affects the result. The parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory, but the description does not compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 identifies the tool as an 'Ops/health view of sources and registry,' which conveys a clear subject and scope. It also distances itself from 'the main discovery path,' helping an agent distinguish it from search-oriented siblings like search and suggest, though it does not name a specific alternative.

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 says this is not the main discovery path, which tells an agent when not to use it and suggests discovery is handled elsewhere. The wording provides clear context for an ops/health use case, though it does not explicitly point to a sibling for discovery.

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