design_version_health

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the 'Requires Kiln Pro' entitlement prerequisite, which is useful, but it does not state that the tool is read-only (implied by 'report' but unconfirmed) or describe what the report contains. Half the text is marketing copy, not behavioral detail.

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 first sentence is front-loaded and useful, but the remaining two sentences are promotional upsell that do not help an agent select or invoke the tool. Every sentence should earn its place, and here half the description does not.

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, no output schema, and only 50% parameter description coverage, the definition is under-specified. It never explains what metrics a 'health report' includes, how the version_ids are used, or what the caller receives, leaving significant gaps for an agent trying to use the tool correctly.

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 only 50%; version_ids has no description and design_name is documented only as 'Default: ""'. The phrase 'across all its versions' loosely implies version_ids, but the description does not explain the relationship between design_name and version_ids or the expected format of version_ids.

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 first sentence clearly states a specific verb+resource: 'Full health report for a design across all its versions.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_design_versions or compare_design_versions by emphasizing a health assessment. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or contrast with them.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like compare_design_versions, get_design_version, or check_design_regression. The remainder of the description is an upsell, not usage context, so an agent gets no exclusions or prerequisites beyond 'Requires Kiln Pro.'

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