doc_health_radar

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

Annotations provide `readOnlyHint: true`, confirming read-only behavior. The description adds details about the output: each axis is 0-100, plus composite score and A-F grade, and the conditional omission of drift_health. This goes beyond annotations to inform the agent of the result format and edge cases.

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 three sentences long, listing the axes concisely and efficiently. It front-loads the core purpose and includes necessary behavioral notes (omitted when no canary) without extraneous text. However, some jargon like 'third leg of the suite-wide pattern' may be slightly dense for an AI agent.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains the return values (axis scores, composite, grade) and conditional behavior. Input is simple (one param). The description also clarifies the tool's role in a suite (pairing with diff tool). Missing detailed definitions of individual axes, but overall it is complete for a straightforward health-check tool.

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 defines one required parameter `repo` of type string with 0% description coverage. The description mentions 'doc repo' but does not clarify what `repo` represents (e.g., repo name, path) or provide any additional semantic meaning. Given the lack of coverage, the description fails to compensate adequately.

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 'Six-axis health radar for a doc repo' and lists all six axes (freshness, link_integrity, etc.), making the tool's purpose as a comprehensive health assessment for documentation repositories unmistakable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like `get_doc_health` by mentioning it is part of 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 mentions pairing with `diff_doc_health_radar` for snapshot deltas, indicating a complementary use case. It also notes that drift_health is omitted when no canary, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus similar siblings like `get_doc_health`, nor provides when-not scenarios or alternatives.

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