get_doc_health

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

No annotations exist, so the description must fully convey behavior. It lists return fields but does not disclose side effects, auth requirements, or whether the call is read-only. The 'one-shot' phrasing suggests no pagination, but overall transparency is moderate.

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 a single sentence, which is concise, but it packs many return fields into a run-on list. It is not bloated, but better grouping or structure would improve 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 single parameter lacks explanation and there is no output schema, the description should clarify the 'repo' parameter and possibly structure the output. The current description focuses only on output fields, leaving input ambiguous.

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 one required parameter 'repo' with no description. Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain what 'repo' represents (e.g., repository name or ID). The agent is left to guess the parameter's meaning.

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 provides index health diagnostics and enumerates the specific metrics returned (section_count, doc_count, etc.). It is a specific verb+resource ('get doc health') that distinctly identifies its function.

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 implies usage as a one-shot health check but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like check_embedding_drift, get_broken_links, or get_stale_pages. No when-not or alternative instructions are given.

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