graph_health

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

No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states the tool 'reports' health/freshness, but does not describe side effects, required permissions, response format, or any limitations. This is insufficient for an AI agent to understand its full impact.

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 sentence with no wasted words. However, it could be restructured to front-load key information and potentially include brief usage context without losing conciseness.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should explain what the report contains (e.g., fields returned, format). It does not. Additionally, with many sibling tools, context signaling when to use this vs others is missing, making the description incomplete for effective tool selection.

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 sole parameter 'profile' already has a description and enum values in the input schema (100% coverage). The description adds no additional semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 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 uses the specific verb 'Report' and clearly identifies the resource as 'graph/index/vector health and freshness status'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like graph_query (which queries the graph) or graph_rebuild (which modifies it).

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 alternatives. For example, there is no mention that it should be used before graph_query to verify graph readiness, or that it is a read-only diagnostic tool.

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