get_health_score

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, suggesting potential side effects, but the description doesn't explain what gets destroyed or altered (e.g., if analysis modifies files or consumes resources). It adds context about the output format (score range, grade, categories), which is useful since there's no output schema, but fails to address the destructive behavior hinted by annotations.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes key output details. Every word adds value without redundancy, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and output format adequately. However, given the annotations hint at destructive behavior and the lack of usage guidelines or behavioral details, it leaves gaps in understanding when and how to use the tool safely, especially compared to siblings.

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, clearly documenting the 'path' parameter. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as path format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 ('Get') and the resource ('overall code health score') with specific output details (0-100 range, grade, category scores). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on a comprehensive health metric rather than specific analyses like complexity or dead code detection, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., analyze_code, check_complexity). The description implies a broad health assessment, but it doesn't specify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer context from tool names alone.

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