super_health_check

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It does not indicate whether the operation is read-only, destructive, requires authentication, or has rate limits. The lack of detail leaves the agent without necessary context for safe usage.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the action and lists key components. No redundant information.

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's comprehensive nature (health check) and lack of output schema or annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the format or interpretation of results, whether the check is synchronous, or any side effects. More context is needed for effective 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?

The tool has no parameters and the schema is empty. The description does not need to explain parameters since there are none. Baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose.

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 action ('Run') and the resource ('full project health check'), listing what it covers (size, bloat, compliance, UGS status). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like build_analyze_bloat or build_check_compliance, though the phrase 'one tool to rule them all' implies an aggregated scope.

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 for a comprehensive health overview but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the more specialized sibling tools. No 'when-not' or alternative conditions are mentioned.

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