chart_health

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true; the description only reinforces this with 'without repair mutations,' clarifying it does not fix what it finds. It adds nothing about cost, timing, or what a failure state looks like, so it is a modest supplement rather than a substantive one.

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?

A single dense sentence with the core action front-loaded and no filler. The trailing clause 'without repair mutations' is slightly elliptical but earns its place by scoping behavior.

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 output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns and does so by enumerating the three report categories. It is adequate for a two-optional-parameter read tool, though the terminology would benefit from a word on what each finding means.

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%, so both target_id and expected_layout_id are already fully documented, and the description adds no further meaning about them. Baseline 3 applies; the description does not explain why a read-only health check accepts an 'expected layout' guard.

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 ('Read') plus three concrete resource categories: chart capabilities, bar availability, and unaddressable studies. This distinguishes it from chart_get_state and session_health, though 'unaddressable studies' and 'bar availability' are jargon that requires domain inference.

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 diagnostic/preflight intent is only implied by 'health' and 'capabilities'; the description never says when to call this versus chart_get_state, chart_get_session, or session_health, nor does it name any precondition such as loading a chart first.

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