whodb_platform_project_health

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so safety is covered. The description adds that the workspace parameter targets per-call 'without changing defaults,' which is meaningful behavioral context, but doesn't disclose return shape or the impact of the omit_* flags beyond schema.

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?

Three tight sentences: what it does, when to use it, and a note on targeting. Front-loaded with zero 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?

Complete for a read-only summary tool: purpose, sequencing, targeting behavior are all present. Minor gap is no description of output composition granularity, but with no output schema and full param coverage, the definition is sufficient.

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 schema documents each parameter. The description reinforces the workspace targeting semantics and the fields/goal purpose by noting the summary's components, adding slight value over the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Return a compact health summary for the selected hosted project') and enumerates what the summary combines (counts, readiness checks, warnings, scope, next actions), letting an agent distinguish it from siblings like runtime_readiness or workspace_summary.

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?

Explicitly sequencing this tool: 'Use this for readiness diagnostics after whodb_platform_workspace_summary or whodb_platform_gap_analysis.' Names the preceding tools and the use case, covering when-to-use and implicit alternatives.

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