Full Infrastructure Report

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds that the command combines multiple check types and optionally skips dependencies, but does not detail output format, runtime, or other behavioral nuances. This aligns with a baseline score given strong annotations.

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 concise, front-loaded with the main purpose, then lists components, provides a clear usage statement, and includes three illustrative examples. No unnecessary words.

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 read-only aggregate tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, components, and usage context well. It lacks only an explicit note on potential performance/scope implications of running everything, which would make it fully complete.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptive parameter names and descriptions. The description adds a comment about 'optionally dependency scan' which maps to skip_deps, but adds no other parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.

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 states a clear verb ('health check'), resource ('infrastructure'), and scope ('complete', 'in one command'), and explicitly positions itself as the 'run everything' command, distinguishing it from specific sibling tools like depsonar_runtimes and depsonar_cve.

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?

It explicitly says to use when you want a full picture and provides examples, giving clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives for targeted checks or when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a perfect score.

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