protocol_health

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state one behavior: it does not return restricted message bodies, implying it filters sensitive content. However, it does not disclose other behaviors such as whether it is read-only, whether it requires any specific permissions, what it actually returns (e.g., a summary, a list of issues), or any side effects. This is insufficient for a reporting tool.

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 extremely concise—one short phrase. It is front-loaded in the sense that the main action is stated first, but it is under-specified. It earns a middle score because it has no fluff, but the brevity comes at the cost of critical information.

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 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description must be self-sufficient. It is not: it omits what the tool returns, how the parameters influence the report, and when to use it. An agent would have to make significant guesses about how to invoke it correctly.

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 only 50% (only binding_token has a description in the schema). The tool description does not mention either parameter at all. It does not explain what campaign_id is used for or how binding_token relates to the health report. Since coverage is low and the description compensates nothing, this is a major gap.

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 says 'Report coordination health' which is a verb+resource but 'coordination health' is not a well-defined concept. It doesn't specify what aspects of health are reported (e.g., worker status, task progress, connection state). It does add a clarifying contrast ('without returning restricted message bodies') which helps but the core purpose remains vague. It is not a tautology, but it lacks specificity to distinguish from potential sibling tools.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions. The description is purely a statement of what it does without any situational context. The agent is left to guess when 'reporting coordination health' is appropriate.

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