agentlens_health

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that the tool returns an overall score (0-100), trend indicator, and dimension breakdown. Though it does not explicitly state read-only behavior or side effects, the nature of 'checking health' implies safe, non-destructive operation, and the return structure is clearly defined.

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 concise and well-structured with clear sections (description, when to use, what it returns, example). Every sentence adds value without redundancy. Front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 low complexity (one optional parameter), the description fully covers what the tool does, when to use it, and what data it returns. No output schema is provided, but the description details the return structure, making it complete for agent decision-making.

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 coverage is 100% (one parameter 'window' with a description). The description includes an example but does not add additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides. 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?

The description clearly states the tool checks the health score of the current agent, with a specific verb ('check') and resource ('health score'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like agentlens_stats and agentlens_agents by focusing solely on health assessment.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool: 'To assess the current health and performance of the agent, to check if error rates or latency are degrading, or to get a quick overview of agent reliability metrics.' It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool references but still offers clear context.

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