health

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects. The verb 'report' strongly implies a read-only, non-mutating operation, but the description does not explicitly state that the tool has no side effects, makes no external calls, or is safe to invoke at any time. It is not contradictory, but it lacks explicit behavioral guarantees.

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 a single, concise sentence that contains no redundant words or filler. It is front-loaded with the verb and immediately specifies what is reported. The structure is ideal for a no-parameter tool.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters and the output schema is available (though not displayed), the description sufficiently covers the essentials. It states what the tool does without needing to elaborate on inputs. The only minor gap is the lack of detail about the output format or structure, but since an output schema exists and the purpose is simple, this is not a significant omission.

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 coverage is 100% (empty properties object). The description does not need to explain parameter semantics because there are none. Per the baseline for 0 parameters, a score of 4 is appropriate; there is no additional parameter-related context to add.

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 the tool's function: 'Report embedding backend, model, and GitHub auth status.' It uses a specific verb ('report') and identifies the exact subjects, making the purpose unambiguous. It also naturally distinguishes itself from the sibling tools (find_repos, repo_intel) which focus on repository discovery and analysis, not system health.

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 does not provide any explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the siblings. While the purpose is clear, there is no direct statement like 'Use this when you need to check system health' or any comparison to find_repos/repo_intel. This leaves the agent to infer usage context from the tool's name and purpose alone.

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