maintenance_run

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavior burden. It usefully discloses that execution is synchronous and returns a per-task report, but it does not describe side effects, mutation scope, idempotency, or safety implications of running all self-healing tasks.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler, and the synchronous nature is front-loaded so an agent immediately understands the blocking behavior.

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 output schema covers return values, and the description covers synchronous execution scope. However, for a no-annotation tool that may trigger codebase changes, the description remains thin on what the self-healing tasks do, whether the operation mutates state, and how it differs from maintenance_status.

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 per the rubric the baseline is 4. There are no parameter semantics to clarify or omit.

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 verb and scope: 'Synchronously run every self-healing task once.' This clearly differentiates a run action from status-oriented siblings like maintenance_status, though it does not name that sibling explicitly.

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 word 'Synchronously' implies a blocking execution useful when you want maintenance done immediately, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus maintenance_status or prune_index, nor any stated preconditions or exclusions.

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