agentic_health

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. The term 'Reporte' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state whether there are side effects, required permissions, or what the report output looks like. It also fails to clarify if the tool scans the project or simply summarizes existing data.

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 a single concise sentence, front-loading the core purpose and content. It avoids fluff, but its brevity contributes to under-specification in other dimensions. It earns a 4 for efficient, focused phrasing.

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?

There is no output schema or annotations, so the description must convey return information. It lists three report components (coverage, gaps, suggestions) but does not explain their meanings, structure, or how to interpret them. For a health-report tool, this is insufficient for an agent to know what to expect.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for the only parameter, project_path. The description mentions 'proyecto' but does not explain the expected path format, whether it must exist, or how it is used to generate the report. The description adds minimal value beyond the parameter name.

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 'Reporte de salud agéntica de un proyecto (coverage + gaps + sugerencias)' clearly indicates that the tool produces an agentic health report for a project, listing coverage, gaps, and suggestions. This goes beyond a simple tautology by specifying the resource and content, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'generate' or 'get'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention the context, prerequisites, or any exclusion criteria. Sibling tools like 'validate_structure' or 'suggest_next_steps' are not referenced, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate usage from the name only.

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