check_vault_health

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so description adds that it scans and returns a categorized list of issues, consistent with read-only behavior. No description of auth needs, rate limits, or side effects beyond what annotations provide. Description adds specificity about issue types but does not significantly augment annotation information.

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?

Description is two sentences, front-loaded with action and scope, then output format. No redundant words, every sentence adds value. Highly concise.

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?

Tool has no parameters and output schema exists, so description need not explain return values. It covers purpose and scope adequately. Sibling tools exist but are not explicitly contrasted; however, given the tool's simplicity and the presence of sibling list, completeness is sufficient. Slight lack of differentiation prevents a 5.

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?

No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100%. Description adds meaning beyond schema by explaining the tool's action (scan for structural issues) and output (categorized list of issues). With 0 parameters, baseline is 4, and description meets it.

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?

Description clearly specifies verb 'Scan' and resource 'vault for structural issues', listing specific issue types (broken wikilinks, orphaned notes, missing frontmatter). Differentiates from sibling tools which focus on subsets (find_orphans, find_broken_links) or repair (repair_vault) or statistics (vault_statistics).

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?

Description implies diagnostic use but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings like find_orphans or find_broken_links. No guidance on prerequisites or when not to use. Sibling names provide implicit context but description lacks explicit guidelines.

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