get_health_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. The term 'diagnostics' implies a read-only operation, and the listed categories provide concrete insight into what the tool examines. However, it does not explicitly state whether any state is modified or note any performance implications.

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 concise phrase that effectively communicates purpose and scope without wasted words. It is front-loaded and every element adds value.

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 zero-parameter diagnostic tool with no output schema, the description provides sufficient context about the report's contents. It could be improved by noting the output format, but the current level is adequate for understanding the tool's purpose.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description need not document inputs. The baseline of 4 is appropriate because no parameter information is required.

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's function as memory health diagnostics and enumerates specific areas it covers (orphans, stale facts, contradictions, decay candidates, DB sizes). This distinguishes it from narrower sibling tools like find_contradictions or get_compaction_audit.

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 use for overall health assessment, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings or when not to use it. No alternative tools are mentioned, so guidance is only implied.

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