Health Report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by specifying the exact checks (outdated deps, security issues, lockfile) and the output scale (0-100). It does not contradict the annotations and provides useful additional context about what the tool evaluates.

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 very concise: a single action sentence followed by two clarifying examples. It front-loads the core purpose (0-100 score) and avoids redundancy, with every sentence earning its place.

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 is reasonably complete for a simple read-only tool with a single parameter. It explains what is checked, the output scale, and provides usage examples. A minor gap is the lack of detail on the return structure (e.g., whether scores come with a breakdown), but given no output schema, the description still covers the essential context.

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 parameter 'project' is fully documented in the schema with 'Project name (e.g. 'my-app') or full absolute path', giving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no additional parameter-specific guidance, so it stays at the baseline score of 3 as the schema already carries the semantic burden.

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The description clearly states the tool scores a project from 0-100 and lists what it checks (outdated deps, security issues, lockfile), making the purpose specific and unambiguous. The included examples further clarify the intended use case, distinguishing it from sibling tools like check or scan by focusing on an overall health score.

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 provides clear context via natural-language examples ('How healthy is JobPin?') showing when users would invoke this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria compared to sibling tools, so it lacks the 'when-not-to-use' guidance for a perfect score.

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