health_report

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the diagnostics run against caller-supplied artifacts rather than a live connection, which changes how the agent should think about the call. It stops short of describing batching limits or what happens with empty input.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the core action and appends the one discriminator that matters. Every word earns its place with no filler.

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?

Annotations are rich and the schema is simple, so the safety and shape story is mostly told. But with no output schema, the description never indicates what the aggregated report contains or how multiple artifact types are combined, and it leaves the optional/required nature of the three arrays unaddressed. Adequate, not complete.

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 0%, so the schema supplies only property names and array-of-string types. The phrase "supplied artifacts" hints that the inputs are inline content rather than IDs or file paths, but it never maps to plans/queries/migrations individually, states the expected format (SQL text? serialized plans?), or notes that all three are optional. Compensation for the coverage gap is minimal.

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?

"Aggregate diagnostics over supplied artifacts" names a specific verb (aggregate) and resource (diagnostics), and the trailing clause carves out a distinct scope from live-DB tools. It implies, but does not name, the sibling relationship to analyze_query/check_migration/explain_plan, so sibling differentiation is indirect rather than explicit.

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?

"not live database health" is an effective when-not constraint that rules out the wrong mental model, which is more than most descriptions offer. However, it never says when to prefer this tool over analyze_query or check_migration, nor that the tool is appropriate for batch/offline review, so the positive routing is left to inference.

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