health_check

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses what the tool returns (indexed file count, repository path, etc.), which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention error conditions, performance characteristics, or whether this is a read-only operation (though implied by 'verify' and 'report').

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 two sentences: one stating the purpose and one detailing the return values. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core function. However, the second sentence is a bit dense with multiple return items listed, which slightly affects readability.

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 tool's complexity (simple status check with 0 params), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It explains what the tool does and what it returns, but lacks context on when to use it, error handling, or how it fits with siblings. For a zero-param tool, this is adequate but has gaps.

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 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, so it meets the baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools. No additional parameter information is required or provided.

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: 'Verify the index is ready and report status.' This is a specific verb ('verify' + 'report') with a clear resource ('the index'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_repository' or 'list_versions' that might also relate to system status.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites, timing (e.g., after updates), or how it differs from other status-related tools in the sibling list. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone.

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