audit_field_health

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds behavioral details: tolerance of per-kind upstream errors with 'notes' and skipping system fields. This provides useful context beyond annotations.

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 two efficient sentences packed with specific, useful information. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and uses concise phrasing without waste.

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 composite audit tool with no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: what issues are flagged, what is skipped, and error tolerance. It lacks details on output format but is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke 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?

Both parameters (refresh, instance) are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage). The description adds no additional parameter-specific semantics, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool generates a composite ticket-field hygiene report, listing specific issues (unreferenced fields, fields in inactive rules, dropdowns with empty options, custom fields not on active forms) and what it skips (system fields). It distinguishes itself from siblings like find_field_usage by bundling multiple checks.

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 explicitly positions itself as 'the right starting point for field-cleanup work' and explains that it bundles find_field_usage plus additional checks, giving clear context for when to use it. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or list other alternatives beyond find_field_usage.

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