healthcheck

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

As no annotations are provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the scope (DB, audit chain, channels) and the working-directory prerequisite, which are useful. But it does not explicitly state side effects, whether it is read-only, or what happens on failure, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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?

Two short sentences accomplish everything: the first defines the tool's scope, the second gives the key parameter requirement. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 single-parameter health check with an output schema, the description covers the essential invocation details and scope. It could be more complete by noting any environmental prerequisites beyond CWD, but nothing critical is missing for basic use.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and only one optional parameter, the description compensates by explaining how to set project_root: 'Always pass project_root as the current working directory.' This adds concrete meaning beyond the schema's bare string type and default.

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 states 'Full health check — DB, audit chain, channels,' naming a clear action and the specific resources it covers. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_firewall_stats, which target a narrower metric. The scope is concise and immediately understandable.

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 'Full health check' phrasing implies it is the comprehensive diagnostic choice, and the instruction to 'always pass project_root as the current working directory' gives call-time guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives such as get_firewall_stats.

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