check_mapping_health

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the entire behavioral burden. 'Check' and 'flag' weakly imply a read-only diagnostic, but the description never states that it is non-mutating, whether it repairs anything, what 'stale' means operationally, or how results are surfaced. For a filesystem-touching tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves key behavior undefined.

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 front-loaded sentence that pairs the operation with its result, with no redundancy or filler. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 one-parameter diagnostic tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core operation but omits the shape of the result (list of stale entries? count?) and whether any remediation is offered. Adequate but with clear gaps given the absence of structured metadata.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Absolute path to the project root'), so the schema fully documents it. The description adds no additional meaning about how projectRoot scopes the check, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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 ('Check'), a specific subject ('component files referenced by the mapping asset library'), and the outcome ('flag stale entries'). This is clearly a diagnostic tool distinguishable from mutation siblings like save_component or remember_mapping, though it never explicitly names or contrasts with them.

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 on when to run this versus alternatives such as scan_components, export_mappings, or import_mappings, and no mention of prerequisites (e.g., that the mapping library must already be populated). The agent must infer the trigger condition from the purpose statement alone.

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