health_trend

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, indicating safe, idempotent operation. The description adds a critical behavioral detail: it avoids fabricating trend lines when history is thin, which is not captured by annotations. This enhances transparency beyond what annotations provide.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose, action, and a key constraint. Every word adds value, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

Despite having an output schema (which may clarify return values), the description omits details about trace window definition, parameter usage, and how the tool fits among many similar sibling tools. For a tool with three optional parameters, this leaves gaps that could confuse an agent.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description does not explain any of the three parameters (projectId, projectRef, limit). The schema documents their types but the description adds no semantic context, leaving the agent to infer their roles from names alone.

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's purpose: comparing recent and prior trace windows for trend review. The specific phrase 'without fabricating trend lines when history is thin' distinguishes it from other trace-related tools and provides a unique behavioral nuance.

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 implies use for trend comparisons when sufficient history exists, but does not explicitly mention when not to use or suggest alternatives among the many sibling tools. No exclusion criteria or comparative guidance is provided.

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