aureon_get_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 implies a read of current state through 'health state' and enumerates what is assessed, but says nothing about permissions/auth, whether results are live versus point-in-time, pagination, or response shape.

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?

It is only one short phrase, so there is no waste, but it is an under-specified fragment rather than a structured, front-loaded sentence establishing the action and outcome.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description must stand alone, and it does convey the three health facets returned. It still omits when to prefer it over aureon_get_health_history and other objective-inspection tools, leaving a real gap for a read tool in a dense sibling set.

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 single objectiveId parameter is fully documented in the schema ('Filter by objective ID (omit for all)'), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no filtering or format detail beyond that, which is the expected baseline at 100% coverage.

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 the resource (health state) and narrows its scope to objectives, then enumerates the facets returned (drift, breach status, policy compliance). However it is a noun phrase with no verb, and it never distinguishes itself from the adjacent aureon_get_health_history, so the purpose is understandable but not sharply differentiated.

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 statement of when to call this versus aureon_get_health_history (historical) or aureon_get_objective (details), nor any prerequisite or context. Usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name.

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