get_health_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavior. It implies a read-only diagnostic operation but does not explicitly state side effects, performance impact, or whether results are aggregated or raw. Minimal behavioral disclosure.

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 extremely concise: a single line that clearly encapsulates the tool's purpose. Every word adds value, with no extraneous content.

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 lists diagnostic categories but omits details on the report format, how results are structured, or any caveats. With no output schema and no annotations, the description is the sole source; it is adequate for a simple diagnostic but lacks completeness for an agent making nuanced decisions.

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?

There are zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, but since there are no parameters, the baseline of 4 applies. No additional info needed.

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 specifies the tool is for 'Memory health diagnostics' and lists specific categories like orphans, stale facts, contradictions, decay candidates, and DB sizes, clearly indicating it provides a health overview. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on individual aspects (e.g., find_contradictions, 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative diagnostics like get_compaction_audit or find_contradictions. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving agents without directional clarity.

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