sswp_registry_health

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. Description adds that it returns a formatted table ordered by risk descending, which is beyond annotations. No behavioral traits are hidden; it accurately reflects a read-only, idempotent operation.

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?

Description is four sentences, with the main purpose in the first sentence, return format and ordering in the second, and usage guidelines in the final two. No redundant words; every sentence adds value.

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 optional parameter, no output schema, clear annotations), the description is fully complete: it explains what it does, what it returns, ordering, and when to use it versus siblings. No gaps.

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 covers the single parameter 'limit' fully with description and default. Description does not add any additional meaning or usage notes about the limit parameter beyond what schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states it displays the fleet health board with specific fields (name, status, timestamps, risk scores) and ordering. It also names alternative tools for specific searches (node_search) and ledger queries (sswp_ledger), distinguishing itself as the ecosystem-wide dashboard.

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?

Explicit usage guidance: 'Use this for an ecosystem-wide dashboard view of attestation status.' Then explicitly points to sswp_node_search for searching specific nodes and sswp_ledger for ledger queries, providing clear when-to-use and alternatives.

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