get_import_health

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose what the score penalizes (circular dependencies, orphan modules, unstable modules, hub concentration) and implies a read-only operation via 'health check.' It does not explicitly state side effects or limitations, but for a scoring tool this is sufficient context beyond the obvious. Given no annotations, this is a solid disclosure but not exhaustive.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary result (score and grade), and immediately lists key scoring factors. Zero filler or redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 simplicity (one param, no output schema) and the 'quick check' framing, the description covers the essential functionality: what it returns, what it penalizes, and its quickness. It does not detail how the score is calculated or what 'grade' means, but for a quick health check, this is adequate. With no output schema, a bit more detail on the grade scale could improve completeness, but overall it is sufficient.

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%—the only parameter 'path' is fully documented as 'Root directory to analyze.' The description adds no additional semantic meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema already provides. With full schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate, and the description does not elevate it further.

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 purpose: 'Get an import graph health score (0-100) with grade.' It specifies the resource (import graph) and the action (get health score), and distinguishes itself from sibling score tools by listing specific penalties (circular dependencies, orphan modules, etc.). This is a specific verb+resource that differentiates it from similar tools like get_complexity_score.

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 phrase 'Quick architecture health check' provides clear context for when to use the tool—when a fast, high-level assessment of import graph health is needed. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., when to use analyze_imports for deeper analysis). This is clear context without explicit when-not usage, so a 4 is appropriate.

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