estimator_health

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose meaningful traits — it flags faults, resets, and innovation-test ratios above 1 (i.e., rejected measurements) — but says nothing about read-only semantics, log size/performance, or output shape. Adequate for a diagnostic read tool, but not rich.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the tool's identity ('EKF2 view') and then efficiently lists the reported categories. No filler, though the trailing parenthetical is slightly cryptic.

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-value explanation is not required, and the description does cover the content categories an agent needs to know. However, there is no usage routing among the estimator-related siblings, leaving a gap for a tool in a dense family.

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?

Only the 'log' parameter exists and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the accepted path/'latest' formats. The description adds no parameter information, making 3 the correct baseline.

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 names a specific domain (EKF2 estimator health) and enumerates the concrete content it surfaces: invalid local position/velocity, dead reckoning, resets, fused sources, faults, and rejected measurements. This is enough to distinguish it from siblings like estimate_vs_truth and velocity_tracking, though it never states an explicit verb such as 'report' or 'show'.

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?

No guidance on when to reach for this tool versus the closely related estimate_vs_truth or velocity_tracking siblings, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given. The agent must infer usage from the content list alone.

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