coordination_health

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose key traits: the output is an aggregated ok|warn status over 7 metric blocks with thresholds, and the call requires the feature_health feature and health.read permission. It stops short of explicitly stating it is read-only/no-side-effect, which an agent could still want confirmed.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler: the first front-loads what the tool produces and its scope, the second states the hard requirement. Nothing repeats the schema or annotations.

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 an output schema exists, the description needn't enumerate return fields, and it already summarizes the return shape and permission prerequisites. The main remaining gap is the absence of usage context that would tell an agent when to reach for this versus other observability-style read tools.

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 the window enum values, agent_id purpose, and project_root scope are already fully documented in the schema. The description only echoes 'windowed' without adding syntax, format, or default guidance beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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?

Names a specific resource (coordination-health) and scope (workspace, windowed) plus the concrete output shape (aggregated ok|warn status, 7 metric blocks). No sibling tool overlaps this domain, so differentiation isn't a concern, but it stops just short of the model 5 by describing a report rather than an explicit action.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. The only conditional information is a prerequisite (requires feature_health and health.read), which is an auth/permission note rather than usage direction. An agent must infer from the name that this is a health-check tool to call proactively.

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