check_config_health

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It adds real scope signal by naming the five audited domains (Sentry, OTel, metering, PII, environment), which implies a read-only audit, but it never confirms this is non-mutating, states permission/auth needs, or hints at whether findings are actionable.

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 tight sentences with no filler; the core purpose and the audited scope are front-loaded. Only a minor markdown list rather than prose would improve scannability.

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?

For a single-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description adequately conveys what is audited but says nothing about the shape or severity of results, which matters when no output schema exists to define them. It is minimally viable but leaves a real gap around the return values.

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 0%, so the description should ideally clarify the 'environment' parameter. It mentions 'environment settings', but this ambiguously refers to the audited config rather than the environment selector parameter, so it does not fully compensate for the coverage gap even though the enum and default are self-explanatory.

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 ('Audit') and resource ('observability configuration') and enumerates the audited areas (Sentry, OTel, metering, PII, environment), which is well beyond a tautology. It is clearly distinct from action-oriented siblings like sentry_resolve_issue or openmeter_dead_letter_retry, though it does not explicitly name an alternative to distinguish itself.

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 phrase 'for production readiness' implies a usage context, and listing the covered subsystems hints at when the tool is relevant. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing to related siblings such as check_conventions or diagnose_issue, leaving the agent to infer.

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