PRISM health

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

The description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond the annotations: it enumerates exactly what shallow and deep modes verify (contracts, perspective registry, artifact hashes, CPU provider, synthetic inference) and states the tool does not scan the project/environment. This complements the readOnly/idempotent hints with concrete operational context.

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 three sentences: a clear purpose statement, a concise breakdown of shallow vs deep, and an important limitation. It is front-loaded, with no redundant wording or filler.

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 single-boolean parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers behavior (shallow/deep), scope (local health), and a key exclusion (no project/environment scan). It is sufficiently complete for an agent to decide when and how to invoke the tool.

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 only parameter 'deep' has no schema description (coverage 0%), but the description fully explains the contrast between shallow and deep modes, making the parameter's meaning explicit and actionable. This goes well beyond the raw 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 opens with 'Report local health,' a specific verb and resource, and then precisely defines the two modes (shallow and deep) and what each checks. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like prism.preflight and prism.measure, which are named differently and serve different purposes.

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 explains the two modes (shallow vs deep) and includes an explicit exclusion ('Never scans the user's project or environment'). However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this tool over its siblings, though the distinct health-check purpose implies appropriate usage.

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