lc_review_output_health

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not indicate whether the operation is read-only, what permissions are needed, or what the output looks like. The description is minimal and lacks transparency about side effects or dependencies.

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 extremely concise at one sentence. While it avoids verbosity, it sacrifices needed detail. It is front-loaded with the action and resources, but additional context is missing. A 3 reflects that it is not wordy but is under-specified.

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 annotations, output schema, and parameter descriptions, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain parameters, return values, or behavioral context. For a tool with two parameters and many siblings, more detail is essential.

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 two parameters (oid, limit) with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain what 'oid' represents (likely an organization ID) or how 'limit' affects results. Without parameter documentation, an AI agent cannot determine how to properly invoke the tool.

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 identifies the action ('summarize') and the resources ('outputs, extension subscriptions, and feedback channel health'). It distinguishes from sibling listing tools like lc_list_outputs, lc_list_extension_subscriptions, and lc_list_feedback_channels by focusing on health summary rather than raw lists. However, the term 'summarize' is somewhat vague, and 'health' is not defined.

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 (e.g., lc_list_outputs or other review tools). There is no mention of prerequisites, context for use, or when not to use this tool. The description offers no decision support.

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