get_health_score

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

With no annotations, the description acknowledges it is a read operation returning data, but does not disclose potential side effects or requirements (e.g., authentication, data freshness). It is acceptable for a simple read-only tool but lacks depth.

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?

Two sentences, no redundant information. Front-loaded with the action, then specifies outputs. Highly efficient.

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 no parameters and presence of output schema, the description covers basic purpose and returns. However, it misses context like whether the health score is real-time or cached, or if prior scanning (via 'scan_aws') is necessary. Adequate but incomplete.

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 tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the description cannot add param info. It does add value by explaining the return structure, which is helpful given an output schema exists, earning a baseline of 4.

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 retrieves the current health score and risk exposure summary, listing specific outputs (score, finding counts, attack chain count, estimated risk). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on individual components.

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 siblings like 'get_findings' or 'get_attack_chains'. It does not mention prerequisites, such as whether a scan is required first, or exclusions.

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