intelligence

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

With only openWorldHint as an annotation, the description carries the burden of safety disclosure. It does well by stating 'advisory impact only' and cleanup safeguards/defaults, which tells the agent that impact is non-mutating and destructive actions require explicit confirmation. It does not elaborate on open-world effects or output behavior, but the output schema partially covers returns.

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 compact and well-structured: a purpose line, action signatures, and a safety line. Every word contributes useful information, with no redundancy or filler.

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 an 18-parameter, five-action tool, the description covers purpose, action signatures, and mutation safety well, and an output schema exists for returns. It falls short only by omitting mapping for pagination/projection parameters and lacking any guidance on choosing among sibling tools, but overall it is highly complete.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds value by grouping parameters per action (e.g., impact(uuid, type, intent?, max_depth?, instance?)) and noting defaults like 'delete_volumes/configurations default false', which the schema does not convey. However, some params (page, per_page, reveal, projection, include_full) are not mapped to any action in the description.

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 explicitly defines the tool as an 'Instance health scorecard, dependency graph, impact analysis, and janitor cleanup' and then enumerates five distinct actions with their signatures. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like instance or diagnose.

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 provides per-action signatures and safety rules (e.g., 'cleanup requires confirm:true · delete_volumes/configurations default false'), giving actionable invocation context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives or provide when-not-to-use exclusions.

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