health_list

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

With readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false already supplied by annotations, the description adds useful behavioral context: results are scoped to data written by this OAuth client, and pagination is retained rather than auto-fetching the entire history. It does not cover return format or rate limits, but it meaningfully supplements the annotations.

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 definition is a single compact sentence that front-loads the query scope before the pagination behavior, with no filler. It is concise, though it could be structured to include essential parameter guidance without becoming bloated.

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 four-parameter listing tool with no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the description omits critical details: what data_type values are valid, what filter does, how pagination tokens/sizes behave, and what the returned records look like. The scope/pagination note helps, but the definition is far from complete.

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 0%, yet the description never mentions the required data_type parameter, the filter parameter, or how page_size/page_token should be used. The only parameter-adjacent hint is '保留分頁,' which is not enough to explain four undocumented parameters.

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 gives a clear verb ('查詢' / query) and a specific resource scope ('此 OAuth 用戶端寫入的資料' / data written by this OAuth client), and it clarifies that pagination is preserved rather than fetching the full health history. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish health_list from sibling list/get/status 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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternative-tool routing. The statement about pagination and not auto-fetching the full history is behavioral context, but it does not tell an agent when health_list should be chosen over health_get, health_status, or other siblings.

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