get_health_score

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. 'Calculate' implies a read-only analysis operation, and the listed outputs (score, grade, breakdown, suggestions) clarify what the agent will receive. However, it does not disclose whether remote API calls are made, what inputs affect the score, or how failures are handled.

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 tightly packed sentence with no filler. Every phrase adds value: the score range, the grading scale, the breakdown, and the improvement suggestions are all meaningful for an agent deciding to invoke the tool.

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 that there is no output schema, the description helpfully specifies the main return components and the numeric range. It is sufficient for simple two-parameter invocation, though it could be more complete by explaining how the score relates to repository metrics or by distinguishing it from get_repo_health.

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 100% for both parameters, so the schema already documents owner and repo. The description adds no additional meaning beyond stating the tool operates on a GitHub repository, so it stays at the baseline.

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 uses a specific verb ('Calculate') and names the resource ('GitHub repository'), plus the key outputs: 0-100 score, A-F grade, category breakdown, and suggestions. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool get_repo_health, which appears to serve a very similar purpose.

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 it is used to compute a repository health score but gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over get_repo_health or other siblings like analyze_dependencies. No alternatives, exclusions, or context-dependent criteria are provided.

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