Check the current coding-agent session’s health with a 0–100 score and A–F grade to gauge context quality and know when to intervene.
AMP: get the session health score (0-100, A-F grade).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. 'Get' implies a read-only operation and the score range/letter grade hints at the return payload, but it says nothing about what 'health' measures, whether it requires an active session, cost, or what happens when no session exists.
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?
A single short sentence with the resource and the return format front-loaded; no filler and nothing repeated from structured fields.
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?
With no output schema, the description usefully discloses the return format (0-100 score, A-F grade). It is nearly complete for a zero-parameter read tool; the remaining gap is that 'session health' itself is never defined.
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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline for a parameterless tool is 4.
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 gives a specific verb ('get') and a specific resource ('session health score'), and even names the return shape (0-100 plus an A-F grade). That is enough for an agent to tell it apart from siblings like amp_read, amp_search, or infernoflow_status, though it never explicitly contrasts with those 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 statement of when to call this rather than infernoflow_status or amp_read, no preconditions, and no exclusions. The agent must infer usage purely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.