library_health

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it implies a read-only health/diagnostic operation with no parameters, which is a reasonable inference from 'is the keeping loaded and sound'. However, it never explicitly states that it is side-effect-free or returns a status report, leaving the agent to infer the safety profile.

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 compact sentence with the category tag front-loaded. It wastes no words, though the terseness comes partly at the cost of clarity in the jargon-heavy clause.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain what a health report contains. It gestures at this with '(totals, shelves, surfaces)' but does not describe the shape or fields of the response, leaving a genuine gap for a zero-input diagnostic tool.

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 there is no parameter semantics to document. Per the baseline for 0-param tools, a 4 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 identifies a diagnostic about corpus health, which is a recognizable purpose, but the verb is implicit and the framing language ('the keeping loaded and sound', 'shelves', 'surfaces') is opaque domain jargon. A sibling like 'audit' or 'verify' cannot be confidently distinguished from this without more wording.

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?

The '[FIND · plumbing]' tag hints at a category but gives no when-to-use conditions and no comparison against near-neighbors such as audit, verify, or capabilities. The agent must guess whether this is a status check, a validation, or a navigation aid.

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