avl.health

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

Annotations are all false, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool diagnoses and 'saves evidence,' implying a stateful side effect, and explicitly states what remains separate. However, it doesn't clarify whether saving evidence is destructive, where it is saved, or whether the tool modifies anything.

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 compact and front-loaded with the main diagnostic areas. The second sentence adds useful boundary information. It could be slightly more structured, but every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a zero-parameter diagnostic tool, the description covers the main scope and notes exclusions. However, it doesn't describe what 'saving evidence' means, what the output looks like, or how this relates to the sibling tools (e.g., avl.inspect, avl.validate). Given the tool's complexity is low, this is adequate but 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides no parameter semantics. The description compensates by explaining what the tool operates on (dependencies, architecture, permissions, startup), giving the agent enough context to understand the tool's scope without needing parameters.

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 names a specific verb ('Diagnose') and a clear resource scope: Python/native dependencies, architecture, directory permissions, and AVL startup. It distinguishes itself from siblings by listing concrete diagnostic areas, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling to contrast with.

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 this is the diagnostic/health-check tool among siblings like avl.inspect, avl.validate, and avl.run, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use it versus those alternatives. The phrase 'Numerical validation and desktop registry refresh remain separate' hints at exclusions but doesn't name the alternative tools.

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