check_setup_health

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

No annotations provided; the description only states it returns blockers and warnings. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, has side effects, requires authentication, or any rate limits.

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?

While concise, the single sentence is too sparse for a tool with 3 optional parameters. Important information is missing, making it under-specified rather than efficiently structured.

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 complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is completely inadequate. It fails to explain what constitutes a blocker or warning, parameter usage, or output format.

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 has 3 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description does not mention or explain any parameters, leaving their purpose and valid values entirely unspecified.

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 indicates the tool checks for setup blockers and warnings, with the context of being a pre-audit check. It uses specific terms ('blockers', 'warnings') and distinguishes from sibling audit/report tools by focusing on setup health rather than results.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies use before audits but does not specify scenarios, prerequisites, or when not to use it.

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