mediaStoreHealth

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it describes what health aspects are checked, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, whether it performs any system modifications, how long it takes to execute, or what format the health report takes. The description provides basic functional information but lacks operational 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 perfectly concise - a single sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Check health') and immediately specifies the scope and components being examined.

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's diagnostic nature, no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic information about what health aspects are checked. However, it doesn't explain what the health check returns (metrics format, success/failure indicators) or how to interpret results, which would be valuable for a diagnostic tool with no structured output documentation.

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?

With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, and the schema fully documents this fact. No additional parameter information is needed or provided.

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 specific action ('Check health') and resource ('local media store'), with explicit details about what health aspects are examined (disk usage, asset counts, ffmpeg/yt-dlp availability). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'checkSystemHealth' by focusing specifically on media store components rather than general system health.

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 description implies usage context (monitoring media store status) but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'checkSystemHealth' or 'listMediaAssets'. No guidance is provided about prerequisites, frequency, or specific scenarios requiring this health check.

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