check_all_projects_health

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

The description lists the health checks performed and the return format. However, with no annotations, it omits critical behavioral details such as auth requirements, rate limits, or side effects. The tool appears read-only, but this is not explicitly stated.

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 brief, uses bullet points for clarity, and front-loads the purpose. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 zero parameters and the presence of an output schema (which covers return details), the description adequately covers the tool's scope, including the list of checks and return format. It is complete for a parameterless tool.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter info. Baseline of 4 applies.

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 performs a health check on all projects with enhanced metrics, listing specific metrics. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_project_health (single project) and export_health_metrics (export).

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 usage for a comprehensive overview of all projects, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives such as get_project_health for individual projects. No exclusion criteria or alternative tool names are mentioned.

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