check_setup_health

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'blockers and warnings' indicating it returns potential issues but does not clarify read-only nature, what specifically is checked, or any side effects. This is minimal disclosure.

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 9-word sentence, highly concise and front-loaded. Every word is meaningful, but it could be slightly expanded without losing conciseness. No structural issues.

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 has one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It lacks details on output format, possible return values, or what constitutes a 'blocker' vs 'warning'. For a health check tool, more context is needed for correct use.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. The tool name and description imply 'project' is the project identifier. However, no details on format, required state, or behavior when omitted. The description adds some context but is insufficient for full understanding.

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 'Project setup blockers and warnings before running audits' clearly states the tool checks for setup issues and is intended for use before audits. It distinguishes from sibling tools like run_baseline, run_vrt, and various *_get_report tools by indicating a pre-audit health check role.

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 description implies use before running audit tools but does not explicitly state when to use or avoid this tool, nor does it provide alternatives. The phrase 'before running audits' gives context but lacks exclusion criteria or comparison to siblings.

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