aos_agent_health_scan

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

No annotations provided, so description carries burden. It explains behavior: scans agent, returns health score, mock mode for CI (no filesystem reads), and defaults for target_dir. It does not mention side effects, but it is likely a read-only operation. Transparent enough for an agent scan tool.

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?

Description is very concise: one-sentence purpose followed by bullet-style parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value; no wasted words. Front-loaded with main action.

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 output schema exists (context: 'has output schema: true'), description is not required to explain return values. It covers purpose, parameters, and mock behavior adequately. Small gap: doesn't specify if the health score is a number or structure, but output schema handles that.

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 0%, but description adds meaning to all three parameters: tool_id is a four-digit agent id with example, target_dir is root directory with default options, mock is boolean for deterministic CI output. This compensates well for lack of schema documentation.

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?

Description clearly states it scans a single AOS agent by tool_id under target_dir and returns a health score. The verb 'scan' and resource 'AOS agent' are specific and distinct from the sibling tool 'self_test' which likely tests the agent itself.

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?

Description implies usage for scanning a single agent but does not explicitly provide when-to-use or alternatives compared to the sibling tool. No guidance on when not to use it.

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