doc_health_radar

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses axes, score ranges, and conditional omission of drift_health, but doesn't mention side effects, auth needs, or rate limits. It is adequate but not thorough.

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 dense with information across four concise sentences, each adding value without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the key axes list and scales.

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 output is well-explained given no output schema, but the description lacks context on the purpose of the health radar, domain assumptions (e.g., jcm, jData), and parameter details. It feels sufficient but incomplete for a newcomer.

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 0% and the description does not elaborate on the 'repo' parameter beyond its existence. It fails to clarify what constitutes a repo or how to specify it, providing minimal added value.

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 produces a six-axis health radar for a doc repo, listing each axis and the output format. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning its pairing with diff_doc_health_radar and its role in a suite-wide pattern.

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 context: it pairs with diff_doc_health_radar for deltas and mirrors other health-radar shapes, implying it's for comprehensive health overviews. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives or exclusion criteria.

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