get_context_health

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

The verb 'Report' suggests a read-only operation, and 'current' implies a snapshot, but the description does not disclose additional behavioral details such as return format, error handling, or whether it has side effects. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but only minimally satisfies it.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence without any unnecessary words. Every word contributes meaning, and it is appropriately sized for a simple read-only 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the core purpose but leaves ambiguity around what 'handover readiness' specifically entails and the structure of the report. It is adequate but not fully explanatory.

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 coverage is 100%—the only parameter, sessionId, is described as 'Session ID.' The tool description does not elaborate on how sessionId is used or provide any additional context, so it adds no value beyond the schema, yielding the baseline score.

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 with a specific verb ('Report') and resource ('current context window usage and handover readiness'). This distinguishes it from siblings like prepare_handover (which likely initiates a handover) and get_status (which is more generic).

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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_status or prepare_handover. There are no exclusions, preconditions, or scenarios described, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name.

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