doc_health_radar

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

With readOnlyHint=true annotation present, the description adds value by clarifying it 'Grades the index, not the prose; none of the six axes read the writing itself,' which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotation. No contradiction found.

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 somewhat repetitive, listing the six axes in the first sentence and then again in the third sentence. It also includes extraneous details about mirroring jcm's and jData's health-radar shape, which could be trimmed without losing essential meaning.

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 description explains the output (axes 0-100, composite grade A-F) and notes what it does not read, but it omits the meaning of the 'repo' parameter and does not describe the health calculation methodology. Overall, it provides partial context but leaves some 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 schema has one parameter 'repo' with no description, and the tool description does not explain what 'repo' refers to. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description fails to compensate, leaving the parameter semantics ambiguous.

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 function: 'Six-axis health radar for a doc repo' and enumerates the six axes. It also distinguishes it from its sibling diff_doc_health_radar by noting it pairs with that tool for snapshot deltas.

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 mentions pairing with diff_doc_health_radar for snapshot deltas, implying this tool is for current health snapshots. However, it does not explicitly state 'use this when you need current health' or provide exclusions for when to use alternatives.

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