check_repo_health

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only states the tool 'analyse[s]' a repository, but does not clarify whether this is read-only, whether it performs network calls, or what metrics are involved. No side effects, permissions, or return behavior are disclosed.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded: it states the purpose in one line and provides parameter documentation in another. Every word earns its place, with no fluff 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?

The tool has one parameter and an output schema, so return-value details may be covered elsewhere. However, the description lacks any usage guidance relative to sibling tools and does not clarify what 'contributor-friendliness' means. It's minimally sufficient but leaves significant gaps in practical context.

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 'repo' is described as 'Full repo name, e.g. "fastapi/fastapi"' which adds practical meaning beyond the schema's bare string type and required flag. The example clarifies the expected format, compensating well for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 the tool's function: 'Analyse a repository's contributor-friendliness.' This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_issue_status or find_issues. However, it doesn't elaborate on what 'contributor-friendliness' entails, so it's clear but not maximally precise.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or sibling tools. The intended usage context is implied by the phrase 'contributor-friendliness' but never made explicit.

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