rlm_index_health

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It implies a read-only operation by listing return values without side effects, but does not explicitly state it is non-destructive or require any permissions. It includes the stale threshold parameter, adding some context, but lacks full behavioral disclosure.

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?

Three sentences with no wasted words: first states purpose, second lists outputs, third gives usage direction. All sentences are essential and front-loaded.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter, the description covers the main outputs and use case. However, it lacks explanation of the health score interpretation and whether the parameter impacts all metrics or just stale detection. No output schema exists but the description provides adequate overview.

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% for the sole parameter 'stale_threshold_days', so baseline is 3. Description mentions 'stale document detection' which relates to the parameter but adds no new details beyond the schema's description. It does not elaborate on how the parameter affects other returned metrics.

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?

Clearly states the tool retrieves comprehensive index health metrics for a project, listing specific outputs like coverage, quality scores, tier distribution, stale detection, and overall health score. This distinguishes it from siblings such as rlm_index_recommendations and rlm_memory_health.

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?

Provides explicit use case: 'Use this to monitor the health of your documentation index and identify issues.' However, it does not discuss when not to use the tool or mention alternatives like rlm_index_recommendations for improvement suggestions.

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