tidy_health

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: it persists a snapshot on every call, which implies statefulness and potential side effects (mutating stored data). However, it does not disclose whether this persistence is destructive or could overwrite previous snapshots, nor does it specify any requirements or limitations (e.g., no snapshot exists on first call, so delta is null). The disclosure of persistence is useful but incomplete.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main output (six-category score), followed by the delta and cause. The single sentence conveys everything without fluff. It loses a point because the '[NOT IMPLEMENTED YET]' prefix is a temporary placeholder that could be removed once the tool is ready, slightly cluttering the description.

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?

The tool has no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description is the sole source of context. It covers what the tool returns (score, delta, cause) and a key side effect (persists snapshot). It lacks details on the return format (e.g., structure of cause, maybe a list of factors), but given zero params and no schema, this is a minor gap. The description is complete enough for an agent 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?

The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on behavior rather than parameters. No improvement is needed here.

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's function: it computes a six-category health score, provides the delta since the last snapshot, and explains the cause of the delta. This is a specific verb (computes/provides) plus a clear resource (health score), and it distinguishes itself from siblings like tidy_status by emphasizing the delta and causation.

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 through the delta mechanism ('second run has a delta'), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings like tidy_status or tidy_drift. There is no explicit when-not guidance. It provides a clear core scenario but leaves alternative routing to the agent's inference.

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