Narya Health

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It describes what information is returned but does not state whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, has side effects, or how the optional file parameter affects behavior beyond selecting a configuration.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately identifies the tool as a toolchain check and lists the relevant outputs. There is no filler or repetition.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be fully explained, yet the description still lists them. However, it omits usage guidance and behavioral traits such as safety or permissions, leaving gaps for an agent deciding when and how to invoke it.

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%, so the description must compensate for the single file parameter. It adds meaning by saying the configuration applies to 'file' or the default project, implying null/absence selects the default, but it does not specify expected file format, path semantics, or constraints.

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 this is a toolchain health check and enumerates what it inspects: project configuration, run method, version, and live session memory. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like narya_check or narya_audit, so it falls short of a 5.

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 guidance on when to call this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'Toolchain check' implies a diagnostic context, but no conditions, prerequisites, or sibling alternatives are named.

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