ck_tool_health

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by specifying the scope of analysis (specific tools) and the output categories (load-bearing, active, etc.). It does not contradict annotations and provides useful behavioral context beyond what annotations offer.

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 sentence that front-loads the primary action and then specifies details. It is efficient, though slightly dense. Every phrase adds value, but it could be split for improved readability. Still, it is concise and structurally sound.

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 has 3 optional parameters and an output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool does, the scope of analysis, and the type of output. It does not elaborate on the output schema's details, but that is acceptable since the output schema exists. Minor gap: 'governance coverage' is not explicitly defined, but context is sufficient.

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% with detailed descriptions for all three parameters. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 applies. No extra parameter guidance provided in the description.

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 tool analyzes governance coverage across recent sessions, enumerates specific CK governance tools (ck_validate, ck_review_submit, etc.), and categorizes them as load-bearing, active, low-usage, or unused. It returns actionable recommendations for gaps, which is highly specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools.

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 explicitly states the tool is for analyzing governance coverage and identifying gaps. While it doesn't mention when to not use it or list alternatives, the context is clear and the tool's purpose is well-defined among many sibling tools. A slight deduction for lacking explicit exclusions.

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