check_signal_capture_health

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

Although no annotations are provided, the description implies a read-only operation by stating it 'reads from' logs and alerts. It does not explicitly declare safety or permissions, but the detail on data sources and lack of side-effect language is fairly transparent.

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 concise, with the main action and context in the first sentence, and additional guidance in subsequent sentences. No unnecessary 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 no output schema and two undocumented parameters, the description covers the tool's purpose, use cases, and differentiation from a sibling. It lacks parameter details but otherwise provides sufficient context for a monitoring 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 input schema has two parameters (platform, hours_back) with 0% description coverage in the schema. The description does not explain what these parameters do or how they affect results, leaving a significant gap for the agent.

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 checks capture rates for identity signal namespaces against thresholds, naming specific data sources (watchdog_capture_rate_log, watchdog_alerts) and distinguishing itself from the sibling get_watchdog_alerts by mentioning trend direction.

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 explicitly provides use cases: diagnosing tracking problems, before attribution analysis, or when data quality is questioned. It also contrasts with get_watchdog_alerts to guide tool selection.

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