health_check

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description reinforces plus extends this: it changes no file, the first run only records encrypted fingerprints kept outside the vault, and repairs are user-performed on the vault page. This is meaningful behavioral disclosure well beyond the annotation flags, and it is consistent with them.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then layers in return format and the fingerprint/repair behavior. Dense and mostly waste-free, though the parenthetical 'how serious, where, what' is slightly verbose for a single parameter tool.

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?

An output schema exists, yet the description still summarizes the return shape (one line per problem or healthy) and fully covers the side-effects and follow-up path. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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% and the single 'vault' parameter is already documented as the vault name listed by the vaults tool. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the schema is doing the work and the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Check an open vault for damage.' It then enumerates exactly what counts as damage (broken folders, long names/files, cut short or swapped files, sync conflict copies), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_folder, file_info, or find.

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?

Gives concrete context: the first run only records fingerprints so later runs can detect cut/swapped files, and repairs are made by the user via control_center. That routes the agent for the follow-up task, but it never states explicit when-to-use/when-not conditions against nearby tools such as file_info.

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