society_health_all

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 discloses that the tool returns a 'comprehensive health report,' which adds useful context about output format. However, it doesn't mention behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential performance impact, or any rate limits. The description doesn't contradict annotations (none exist), but it's minimal on behavioral details.

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 two concise sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place: the first sentence defines the action and scope, and the second clarifies the output. No wasted words or redundant information.

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 (simple health check with no parameters) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It covers the purpose and output type but lacks details on what 'health' entails, report format, or integration with other tools. For a tool with no structured metadata, more context would be helpful.

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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage (empty schema). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics since there are none. It appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, earning a baseline score of 4 for not introducing unnecessary information.

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 purpose: 'Check health status of all 26 Miyabi Societies at once.' It specifies the verb ('check'), resource ('Miyabi Societies'), and scope ('all 26 at once'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'society_health_single' beyond the 'all at once' phrasing, which is why it doesn't reach a perfect 5.

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 context through 'all 26 Miyabi Societies at once,' suggesting this is for a comprehensive overview rather than individual checks. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus 'society_health_single' or other health-related tools like 'health_check' or 'db_health.' No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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