health_check

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It merely says 'Perform comprehensive health check' without explaining what the health check entails, whether it is read-only, what output format is returned, or any potential side effects. This is a significant omission for a tool that could be expected to analyze files.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and efficient, but it lacks the detail that would make it genuinely useful. This is concise but under-specified, which is better than verbose filler.

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?

The tool has 4 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description fails to explain what a 'health check' is, what the return value looks like, or how this relates to sibling tools. The schema descriptions help but do not cover the overall context and use case, making this incomplete for an AI 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?

Schema coverage is 100% for all four parameters (summary, detailed, languages, namespaces), and each parameter has a clear description. The tool description itself does not add any parameter-level meaning, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema already fully documents the parameters.

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 states a specific action ('Perform comprehensive health check') on a specific resource ('translation files'). This clearly identifies the tool's function, though it does not distinguish it from siblings like quality_analysis or validate_files, which may overlap in purpose.

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 alternatives. It does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions. Given sibling tools like quality_analysis and coverage_report, the lack of differentiation makes it hard for an agent to select the correct tool.

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