get_user_story_health

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the type of data returned, which is helpful, but doesn't explicitly state read-only behavior, error conditions, or edge cases. The 'Get' verb implies a read operation, but side effects and assumptions are unaddressed.

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 concise single sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, and each clause adds specific value (status, completion, safety). 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?

For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose and key output fields. It could mention edge cases or the meaning of 'health', but it is reasonably complete for its simplicity.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the input schema is fully sufficient. Baseline 4 applies because there are no parameter details to add; the description already conveys the scope ('all user stories').

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?

Description clearly states the tool gets health monitoring data for all user stories, with specific output aspects (current vs. suggested status, completion percentage, safety flags). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_user_stories by focusing on health monitoring rather than mere listing.

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 explicit usage guidance or alternatives are mentioned. The description implies use when a health overview is needed, but it doesn't clarify when to prefer this over get_user_stories or other related tools. Adequate but not fully explicit.

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