ci_health_score

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

With no annotations provided, the description should disclose behavioral traits like read-only nature, side effects, or rate limits. It only states the operation without any such details, leaving the agent uninformed about behavior.

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 a single sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and efficiently communicates the core purpose.

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?

No output schema is provided, yet the description omits details about the return value (e.g., score range or format). For a score-computing tool, this is a notable gap, though the description still conveys the basic function.

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 description coverage is 100%, so parameters are already documented. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Compute' and resource 'CI health score for a branch', with basis on 'pass/fail and flakiness'. It differentiates from sibling tools like 'detect_flaky_tests' and 'get_failed_runs' by focusing on an aggregate score, but does not explicitly contrast.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description implies use for high-level health assessment, but does not mention when not to use it or suggest sibling tools for deeper analysis.

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