Get backend health for a project

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint. Description adds behavioral context: returns specific structure when backend linked, or reason if not configured. No contradictions.

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?

Description is concise (3 sentences), front-loaded with main purpose, then adds usage guidance and return structure. 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, description explains return values (three objects + projectRef vs reason). Annotations cover safety. Two optional params are well-documented. Complete for a read-only health check 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, both parameters (project_id, include_logs) have descriptions in schema. Description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 current backend health state, listing specific components (tables with RLS status, error logs, advisor findings). It distinguishes from sibling tool 'run_fullstack_audit' by noting this is a fast path.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool vs alternative: 'This is the read-only fast path — use run_fullstack_audit for the full scorecard including gate results.' Also notes it uses read-only client via PAT, implying no side effects.

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