community_health_summary

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits, but it only states the return type (summary) and content categories. It does not mention whether the tool is read-only, what sources it uses by default, how data is processed, or any side effects. This leaves critical behavioral aspects undocumented.

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 of 20 words, which is concise and front-loaded with the key action and result. However, it could be slightly more informative without sacrificing brevity, e.g., by hinting at the source of the summary or the output format.

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 complexity (9 parameters, no output schema, many sibling tools), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the output format, default behavior when parameters are omitted, or integration context with sibling tools. While the schema covers parameters, the description fails to provide a complete picture for effective use.

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 100% description coverage for all 9 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already provides, such as how they influence the summary or typical usage patterns.

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 returns an IPMC-level summary of community health across podlings, specifying included content like strong patterns, risks, and mentoring-capacity signals. It is a specific verb+resource and distinguishes itself from sibling tools that focus on individual podlings or specific aspects, but could be more explicit about its unique scope.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools (e.g., podling_brief, current_podlings_overview). It lacks any context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions, making it difficult for an agent to select correctly among similar options.

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