Health

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the set of checks performed, which is useful scope context, but says nothing about cost, whether it scans the whole vault, or whether results are cached. With annotations carrying the safety burden, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

A single sentence fragment with zero waste and the scope stated up front. It is appropriately sized for a zero-argument diagnostic tool, though the fragmentary phrasing (no verb) makes it slightly more label than instruction.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, and with no parameters there is nothing else to document. Listing the diagnostic categories gives the agent enough to know what it will learn, though it omits any note on how to act on findings or how expensive the scan is.

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 takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies a parameterless whole-vault scan rather than a targeted query, which matches the empty schema.

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 names the resource (Vault) and enumerates the exact categories of issues surfaced (missing frontmatter, broken links, orphans, unfiled inbox, stale projects), which is far more specific than a bare 'Health' title and clearly separates it from siblings like search, read, or daily. It is a telegraphic noun phrase rather than a verb+resource statement, but the scope is unambiguous.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance: nothing says whether to run this before a cleanup pass, on a schedule, or instead of the sibling 'archive' tool. No alternatives or exclusion conditions are named, so the agent must infer the trigger condition entirely.

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