export_health_issues

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the core side effects (running repository_health, writing files to exports/) and the return value, but omits details like file overwriting, performance impact, or prerequisites. It is minimally transparent but not misleading.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant or extraneous words. It efficiently communicates the primary action and output.

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 having an output schema, the description is under-specified for a tool with four optional parameters and a filesystem side effect. It lacks parameter meaning, when-to-use guidance, and important behavioral context such as overwrite behavior or prerequisites, making it insufficient for reliable invocation.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no explanation for any of the four parameters (fmt, prefix, client_id, max_records). The phrase 'csv or json' hints at fmt, but the description does not explicitly map this to the parameter, nor does it compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 action ('Run repository_health'), the resource ('health issues'), and the output ('write to exports/… Returns path'), while distinguishing the tool from sibling export tools by specifying health-issue export.

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, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like export_funder_issues or export_search_results. There are no exclusions or direct comparisons, leaving some ambiguity.

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