full_health_check

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It transparently discloses the tool's scope, what it returns, and why certain analyses are excluded. It does not mention potential performance/resource implications or explicitly state that it is read-only, but the nature of 'analyses' on a project strongly implies non-destructive behavior, and the exclusions add meaningful context.

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 dense sentence listing all analyses, followed by a clear note about exclusions. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and the list is informative, though slightly overstuffed with parenthetical items. Still, every part earns its place and there is no waste.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description is quite complete: it lists the analyses, what the report contains, and explicitly excludes analyses that require extra context. It does not describe error handling or non-Python projects, but these are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity.

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 schema already describes the only parameter ('Directory path to analyze') with 100% coverage. The description adds the context that the path should point to a Python project, but does not provide syntax, format, or behavioral details beyond the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 explicitly lists all analyses performed (complexity, dead code, security, etc.) and states the output (combined health report with scores, grades, top issues). It clearly distinguishes itself from the many sibling tools by being an all-in-one scan rather than a single-analysis tool.

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 note about hotspot, dependency, and change impact requiring additional context (git repo, requirements files, changed files) provides clear insight into when this tool is NOT sufficient and implicitly signals to use sibling tools for those analyses. However, it doesn't explicitly say 'use this instead of running individual analysis tools when you need a full overview', making the guidance slightly implicit.

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