timps_full_checkup

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the scan and return of a score/action list but does not disclose whether any system modifications occur, whether it's read-only, potential side effects, or the exact nature of the 'prioritised action list' (e.g., are actions executed or just suggested?). This lack of detail on behavior beyond the surface is a notable gap.

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 sentence that front-loads the action and clearly states the return value. No unnecessary words; every part contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 the tool's complexity (orchestrating 6 agents), the description is brief. It lists the agents involved and the output (health score and action list), but does not explain what each agent assesses, how the score is computed, or the format/type of actions. With no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more detail about the return value and potential side effects, but it remains high-level and underspecified.

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 coverage is 100% (the single optional 'focus' parameter is described). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it merely repeats the hint to customise the checkup. Baseline is 3 due to full coverage, and the description adds no extra nuance.

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 runs a comprehensive computer health scan across a specific list of 6 agents and returns a combined health score and prioritized action list. It uses a specific verb ('Run') and resource ('computer health scan'), and it distinctly differentiates itself from the sibling individual agent tools by indicating it's an aggregation.

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 implies usage for a full health overview but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus individual agents (e.g., 'use when you need a complete health assessment, use specific agents for targeted checks'). No explicit exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, though the comprehensive nature is implied.

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