suite_health

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains the classification categories, ranking order (worst-first), and the prioritization of regressions. It also notes that filters mirror list_flow_analytics. Though it doesn't mention rate limits or auth, the behavioral insight is sufficient for this analytics tool.

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 a single, well-structured paragraph. It front-loads the core purpose, then explains the regression significance, provides a usage recommendation, and notes filter mirroring. Every sentence adds value without 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 description lacks details about the output format or return structure, which is notable given no output schema is provided. It adequately covers the classification and usage context but would benefit from clarifying what the tool returns (e.g., a list of flow analytics). Given the tool's complexity and 6 parameters, completeness is adequate but not thorough.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no further parameter-level details beyond stating that filters mirror list_flow_analytics. It does not provide additional meaning or usage examples beyond what is already in the schema.

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 the tool classifies Maestro flows into healthy, flaky, broken, or regression categories, ranked worst-first. It explicitly distinguishes from siblings by recommending diagnose_run for fixing specific runs, and mentions filters mirror list_flow_analytics.

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 gives explicit guidance: use this to prioritize failures before diving into fixes, and then use diagnose_run to fix a specific run. It highlights that regressions are surfaced first due to recent changes, providing clear context for when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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