explain_code_health

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: 'static documentation' signals a pure read operation with no side effects, and the Limitations line sets expectations about scope. It adds a return shape and warns that the tool answers questions rather than acting, though it says nothing about the empty-default topic behavior.

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?

Four short lines, front-loaded with the purpose, then labeled When to use / Limitations / Returns sections. Every sentence carries information and nothing is redundant.

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?

For a one-parameter documentation tool with an output schema present, the description covers purpose, usage, limitation, and return keys without needing to describe the return payload in detail. The only missing piece is what happens when topic is omitted and the empty default applies.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does by telling the agent that the single parameter accepts 'a smell name or "score"' as a topic. That is real meaning beyond the bare string schema, but it does not enumerate valid smell names or explain what the empty default produces.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Explain the Code Health model, a smell, or the score bands.' An agent can immediately tell this is a documentation lookup rather than a scoring/computation tool like code_health_score. It does not explicitly name a sibling to contrast with, so it lands just short of 5.

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?

Provides an explicit 'When to use: to understand a finding or how the score is computed', which gives clear selection context for interpreting review output. It stops short of an explicit exclusion (e.g., 'do not use this to compute a score — use code_health_score'), so there is no when-not guidance.

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