ecosystem_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the tool performs a read-only scan, has side effects, requires configuration, or returns data. The word 'reporte' implies a read operation, but no explicit behavioral details are given, which is insufficient for an unannotated tool.

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 with no redundancy or extraneous words. It effectively communicates the core purpose in a structured way. While it lacks necessary details, those are accounted for in other dimensions, and conciseness itself is appropriately maintained.

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?

Given the lack of output schema, no annotations, and a single undocumented parameter, the description is insufficient for understanding the tool's full behavior, return values, or use cases. Sibling tools exist for specific status types, but the description does not explain how this status report integrates with or differs from them. The description leaves critical gaps in context.

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 single parameter 'config_path' is completely undocumented in both the schema and description. Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not compensate by explaining what config_path does, what format it expects, or when it should be provided. The AI agent is left without any meaningful information about the parameter.

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 clearly states the tool provides a complete ecosystem health report covering projects, agentic coverage, and gaps. It is a specific noun phrase but lacks a direct verb; however, 'Reporte de salud' conveys the tool's action. It somewhat distinguishes from sibling tools by emphasizing 'completo' and enumerating covered areas, but does not fully differentiate from all siblings.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or situations where other sibling tools like 'agentic_health' or 'storage_status' would be more appropriate. The description merely states what it does, leaving the AI agent without decision support.

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