front_design_health

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it never returns credentials and redacts database URLs. It also clarifies that it reports dynamic server state, which is useful but not heavily detailed.

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 concise and well-structured: a brief opening sentence summarizing the purpose, followed by a clear enumeration of what it reports and a safety note. Every sentence adds value without redundancy or fluff, making it easy to parse.

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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: backend, retrieval modes, embedding provider, index counts, and security redaction. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to decide when to call it and what to expect.

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, so the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it appropriately focuses on the tool's behavior and output. There is nothing to compensate for.

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 clearly states it performs a 'Readiness check' covering storage backend, retrieval mode, and index counts. It uses a specific verb and resource, and the scope ('what the server can actually do right now') distinguishes it from sibling tools like front_design_ping (liveness) and discover_frontend_resources.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: to check current backend availability, search modes, and embedding provider configuration. It implies usage for readiness assessment but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it lacks the highest level of guidance.

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