get_health_score

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

Annotations already indicate safe, idempotent read. Description adds return shape ({score, verdict}) and cost hint ('cheapest'), which are helpful but not contradictory.

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?

Two efficiently structured sentences with clear sections (purpose, usage, returns) and zero wasted words.

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, but description explains return value. Lacks detail on score computation or edge cases, but adequate for a simple gate tool given annotations.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, description must compensate but it adds no parameter guidance. Names and enum in schema are somewhat clear, but description misses opportunity to clarify needed inputs.

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?

Clearly states it returns a 0-100 health score as a go/no-go gate, distinguishing it from sibling tools like check_malicious and check_typosquat by emphasizing it is a cheap, final check.

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 specifies when to use (CI gating or after malware/typosquat screening) and when not to use (not a first screen), and recommends alternatives (check_malicious, check_typosquat, get_package_prompt).

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