health_check

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool 'checks' various aspects and 'returns actionable recommendations', but does not specify whether it performs read-only operations, requires permissions, has side effects, or details rate limits or performance impacts. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 highly concise and well-structured, consisting of a single sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's function, scope, and output. Every word earns its place, with no wasted information, making it easy to understand at a glance.

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 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain inputs or return values. However, as a diagnostic tool with no annotations, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like execution time, error handling, or integration with sibling tools, leaving some contextual gaps despite the structured data support.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the inputs. The description does not need to add parameter information, and it appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose and output without redundant details, earning a baseline score of 4 for zero-parameter tools.

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's purpose as running a comprehensive health check on the Tessera workspace, specifying what it checks (config validity, dependencies, index status, stale documents, zero-result query patterns) and what it returns (actionable recommendations). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'tessera_status' or 'memory_health', which might have overlapping functions, so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, timing, or exclusions, and with many sibling tools (e.g., 'tessera_status', 'memory_health', 'project_status'), there is no indication of how this tool differs in usage context.

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