project_health_check

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. While 'check health' implies a read-only diagnostic operation, the description doesn't specify what 'health' means in this context, what metrics are examined, whether authentication is required, or what the output format looks like. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's 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?

The description is extremely concise at just 6 words, which is efficient for such a simple operation. However, this brevity comes at the cost of completeness - it's so minimal that it lacks important contextual information that would help an agent use the tool effectively.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and multiple similar sibling tools, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what constitutes 'health' in this context, what the output looks like, or how this differs from other status-checking tools. The agent would need to guess about the tool's behavior and appropriate use cases.

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 100%, with the single parameter 'projectId' clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any additional semantic context about the parameter beyond what the schema already provides, such as format requirements or valid values. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate but minimal parameter documentation.

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 the tool checks health of a specific project instance, which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'project_status', 'project_instances_status', or 'visum_health_check', leaving ambiguity about what distinguishes this health check from other status-related tools.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools that seem related to project status/health (project_status, project_instances_status, visum_health_check), the description offers no context about what makes this tool the right choice or when other tools would be more appropriate.

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