timeline_health

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and mostly discharges it: it enumerates the return contract (ok / errors / warnings / counts / marker_position) and shows a concrete failure example with the per-item error shape. What it omits is whether the call is purely diagnostic or triggers a recompute, and whether it has any side effects on the timeline — material facts for an unannotated tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then the return shape, then a one-line usage rule, then a compact example. The field enumeration is dense but earns its place because no output schema exists to carry it.

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?

For a zero-parameter diagnostic tool with no annotations and no output schema, this covers the essentials: what it reports, what the fields mean, and when to call it. Minor gaps remain around recompute semantics and how suppressed/rolled-back items relate to errors.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate; the baseline applies. The description correctly implies a no-argument invocation via the `timeline_health()` example.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: a health report over the whole timeline, with named return fields (errors, warnings, suppressed_count, rolled_back_count, marker_position). It is clearly a diagnostic read rather than a mutation, but it never distinguishes itself from nearby siblings like timeline_compute_all or fusion_status, which an agent could plausibly pick instead.

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?

"Call it after a series of edits to check the model" gives a concrete trigger condition, which is more than most definitions offer. It stops short of exclusions — it doesn't say when to prefer timeline_list, timeline_compute_all, or fusion_status — so the agent still has to infer the boundary.

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