check_chain_health

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds one useful behavioral detail — operation independent of capacity_tracking — but does not explain detection logic, output format, or what 'stagnant' means beyond the schema's stale_days parameter.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and the second sentence provides a useful operational constraint. No wasted words; appropriately sized for a simple check tool.

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 read-only, idempotent, one-parameter tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description is nearly adequate. However, it does not help the agent choose between this tool and the close sibling 'check_stagnation', and it omits any guidance on interpreting the results or using stale_days.

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?

The provided schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the single parameter 'stale_days' lacks documented semantics in the structured data per the context signal. The description does not mention this parameter at all, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap. Although the nested schema text contains a description for stale_days, the description itself adds no parameter meaning.

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 states a specific verb ('Detect') and resource ('stagnant/forgotten chains'), making the core purpose clear. However, it does not distinguish this tool from the sibling 'check_stagnation', leaving ambiguity about which check to use when.

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 only usage-related statement is 'Always active regardless of capacity_tracking', which tells the agent it can be used even without capacity tracking enabled. It does not say when to use this tool versus alternatives like check_stagnation, nor does it provide any exclusions or prerequisites.

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