inspect_auth_health

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It explicitly states the tool does not edit protected code, indicating a safe, read-only operation. However, it does not disclose what 'health signals' are, whether any side effects exist, or what the tool returns, leaving significant gaps.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and object, no filler. It earns its place by stating the primary function and a key behavioral constraint.

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 description is too sparse for a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and undocumented parameters. It gives no context about what 'health signals' are, what parameters do, or how to interpret results, making it incomplete for reliable invocation.

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 (taskId, pathname) have no schema descriptions and are not mentioned in the tool description. With 0% schema coverage, the description fails to provide any semantic meaning for these optional parameters, leaving the agent to guess their purpose and format.

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?

Clearly states it inspects authentication health signals, with a specific verb and resource. The phrase 'without editing protected code' reinforces a read-only inspection role, distinguishing it from editing tools. However, 'health signals' is somewhat vague, preventing a 5.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention situations, prerequisites, or point to sibling tools like inspect_analytics_health or get_protected_files. The only hint is the non-editing clause, which implies safety but not selection criteria.

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