health_score

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions the analysis factors but omits whether the operation is read-only, if it requires special permissions, or what the output format is. This leaves critical behavioral traits undisclosed.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the action ('Score') and immediately specifies the resource and key metrics. Every phrase contributes meaning with zero wasted words.

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 tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description covers the core function but lacks details about the return value or how the score is presented. While adequate for basic invocation, it could specify the output shape to be fully complete.

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 zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds semantic value by listing the metrics evaluated, clarifying what the tool computes even though no parameters are needed. It does not introduce parameter-specific details because none exist.

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 purpose: to score repository health based on four specific metrics (dead code, cycles, coupling, coverage). The verb 'Score' and resource 'repository health' are specific, and the metrics differentiate it from sibling tools like detect_cycles or check_boundaries.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools suggest specific analyses (e.g., detect_cycles, check_boundaries), but this description does not explicitly contrast or recommend usage scenarios, leaving the agent to infer.

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