Check Space Health

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint, it discloses performance cost ('takes a while on large spaces') and an important truncation rule: lists cap at 50 entries while the summary counts all. Those are non-obvious behaviors an agent needs to interpret results correctly.

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 two dense sentences: the first enumerates what is checked, the second discloses cost and truncation semantics. There is no filler and the important scoping/cost information is not buried.

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 that an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return shapes. It covers the check inventory, read cost, and result truncation, which is enough for an agent to decide when and how to call 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 coverage is 100%, so space_id, max_pages, and stale_days are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces that max_pages bounds full-space reading and stale_days defines staleness, but adds little beyond the schema text.

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?

It states a specific verb and resource ('health check of one space') and enumerates exactly what is checked: stale pages, empty/untitled pages, duplicate titles, broken links/mentions, and top updaters. That set of checks is distinct from siblings like get_space or list_pages.

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?

It makes the use case clear (auditing a space's content health) and warns that it reads every page up to max_pages and is slow on large spaces. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but there is no sibling that performs a comparable audit.

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