Fleet health overview

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: operations are performed in parallel across the fleet, results are sorted worst-first, and it relies on a fleet config file. The explicit 'Read-only' statement reinforces the annotations. No contradictions.

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 extremely concise: two sentences covering purpose, scope, specifics, and read-only nature. Every word adds value; no filler or repetition. It is front-loaded with the primary action and key differentiators.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (fleet, parallel, multiple fault types) and the presence of a full output schema, the description provides sufficient context. It explains the parallel triage, fault types, sorting, and config file dependency. The only minor gap is no mention of the output format, but the output schema covers that. Overall, complete for the task.

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% (all three parameters have descriptions in the input schema). The description does not add additional semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., tag, deep, config). According to guidelines, when coverage is high, baseline is 3, and no extra information is provided here.

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 tool's purpose: triaging operational faults across a fleet of SQLite databases in parallel, listing specific fault types (corruption, WAL bloat, fragmentation, reachability) and sorting worst-first. This verb+resource combination ('triage operational faults across a fleet') distinguishes it from sibling tools like litescope_health, which likely targets single databases.

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?

The description implies usage for fleet-wide health triage and explicitly marks the tool as read-only, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., litescope_health for single databases, litescope_check for specific checks). The usage context is implied but not fully delineated.

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