get_project_health

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden. It effectively discloses the return structure (JSON string with specific health metrics listed), but fails to mention operational characteristics like read-only safety, caching behavior, rate limits, or authentication requirements.

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 docstring format with explicit Args and Returns sections is structured and scannable. Every line provides value—the opening sentence establishes purpose, the Args section documents the parameter, and the Returns section details output fields. No extraneous text is present.

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?

For a single-parameter retrieval tool, the description adequately covers the input parameter (compensating for 0% schema coverage) and describes the output structure. While an output schema exists according to context signals, the detailed enumeration of health metrics adds clarity. No critical gaps remain for tool invocation.

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%, leaving the parameter undocumented. The description compensates by providing 'Full project identifier (e.g., "wordpress_site1")' in the Args section, which clarifies the expected format and provides a concrete example, effectively compensating for the schema gap.

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 verb (Get) and resource (detailed health information for a specific project). The term 'specific project' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'check_all_projects_health', and 'health information' differentiates it from 'get_project_info' and 'get_project_metrics', though explicit contrast with siblings is not provided.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'check_all_projects_health' (batch vs. single) or 'get_project_metrics'. There are no prerequisites, conditions, or explicit recommendations for tool selection.

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