environment_health

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe, non-mutating read, so the description isn't carrying the safety burden. It does add useful scope detail (three things being summarized), but leaves unexplained how expensive drift computation is, whether snapshots are fetched or merely counted, or what the summary looks like.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Slightly under-specified rather than bloated, but "current project drift" is compressed to the point of ambiguity.

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?

No output schema, so the description must convey what comes back; it lists three dimensions but not their form (booleans, counts, diff lists). With one undocumented parameter and overlapping siblings, the definition is minimum viable rather than 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?

One required parameter with 0% schema description coverage, and the description does nothing to define what an "environment" identifier is (name, ID, slug?) or where to obtain one. It mentions the word "environment" only as part of the resource list, not as parameter guidance.

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 names a specific verb ("Summarize") and enumerates the resources covered: environment existence, snapshots, and project drift. That is enough to distinguish it from a plain existence check, but it never contrasts itself with siblings like diff_environment or list_environments.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus diff_environment, list_environments, or run_audit — all of which live in the sibling set and overlap conceptually. The agent must infer the routing decision from the noun "health" alone.

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