get_workspace_health

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly frames the operation as a read-style 'Get' and describes the summary output, which is helpful. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is non-mutating, whether deeper scanning occurs, or any permission/performance considerations, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, an Args line, and a Returns line. There is no filler or repetition, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 simple read-only health check with a single optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers the essential calling information and summaries what will be returned. The main gap is the lack of explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over sibling scanning/cleanup tools, but that is a minor omission given the tool's straightforward nature.

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 schema gives the parameter only a title ('Path'), a default, and a type, with no description. The tool description compensates by explaining that path is the 'Workspace root directory,' adding real meaning. It does not mention default behavior when omitted, but the schema already exposes that default, so the added semantics are sufficient.

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 and resource: 'Get high-level health overview and disk space metrics for a developer workspace.' It also lists the returned metric categories, which helps define scope. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like scan_workspace or audit_workspace_secrets, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 phrase 'high-level health overview' implies this tool is for an initial or summary check, and the return categories suggest it surfaces broad issues before deeper action. But the description does not name alternatives or state when to prefer scan_workspace, preview_cleanup, or audit_workspace_secrets. Usage guidance is only implied, not explicit.

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