engagement_health

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Report' suggests a read-only style operation, but the description does not explicitly state that no state changes occur, does not mention auth requirements or side effects, and provides no detail about what 'registered' or 'pending' statuses mean. With no output schema, return behavior is also undisclosed.

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 compact sentence with no filler or repetition. It front-loads the verb and the key reported categories, which makes it easy to scan, although it is terse enough that it contributes to under-specification in other dimensions.

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 annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, this one-line description is not enough for a fully informed call. A no-argument health check is guessable, but the behavior of engagement_id, the meaning of 'registered,' and the relationship to sibling status tools like query_cards and state_impact are left unexplained.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description never mentions engagement_id. The agent cannot tell whether the optional parameter filters the report to one engagement, scopes the results, or is required for a valid call. The description adds no meaning beyond the raw property name in the 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 uses the specific verb 'Report' and names concrete resources: registered engagements, cooldowns, and pending waves. This makes the tool's core purpose clear and distinguishes it from the execution-focused siblings like execute_wave and begin_engagement, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from query-oriented siblings like query_cards.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description states what it reports but does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or a preferred context such as 'check status before executing a wave.' An agent would have to infer usage from the tool name and sibling names.

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