rr_get_sku_health

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the purpose and does not explicitly mention that the operation is read-only, cite any side effects, or clarify permissions. The name 'get' implies read-only, but no explicit confirmation.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and key output details.

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 parameterless tool, the description is adequate but lacks details about output structure (e.g., format of counts, whether per SKU or aggregate). It does not clarify the relationship to sibling tools, leaving some ambiguity about when to use this vs. more specific health 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?

No parameters exist, so the description naturally has nothing to explain about parameters. It adds value by describing the output content (risk counts, alert counts). Baseline for 0 params is 4.

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 it provides a 'SKU-level health summary' with specific counts (risk, alerts). The verb 'get' and resource are explicit, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like rr_get_alerts (which likely returns detailed alerts) by aggregating multiple health indicators.

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?

Usage is implied (call to get health summary), but no explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like rr_get_alerts or rr_get_stockout_risk. The description does not specify conditions or exclusions.

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