wm_health

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool is read-only, requires a policy file, and returns an error instructing the user to run 'wm init' if the file is missing. This is strong, specific behavioral transparency.

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?

Three tightly written sentences communicate the computation, return format, use cases, read-only nature, prerequisite, and error behavior. Every sentence adds value, and the core purpose is front-loaded.

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 is simple with no parameters, and the description covers both the return value and failure mode. Even without an output schema, the description tells an agent exactly what to expect and what conditions are required for successful invocation.

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 has zero parameters and the schema reflects that with complete coverage, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The description adds useful output-field context by naming the breakdown components (coverage, compliance, cleanliness), which goes beyond 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 states a specific action ('Compute the workspace health score') with a concrete output format ('0-100' score with per-component breakdown for coverage, compliance, and cleanliness). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like wm_verify or wm_audit by focusing on a single aggregate health metric.

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 description provides explicit usage context: 'Use this to quantify in one number how well the workspace follows its policy, e.g. for CI gates or session-end reporting.' It gives clear scenarios for when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives.

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