Get capture health

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds real behavioral detail beyond them: it reads the index snapshot, falls back to the sidecar, and errors when no health data exists. It also explicitly disclaims side effects (no retry, no recompute), which prevents an agent from expecting remediation.

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?

Four short sentences, each carrying distinct information (purpose, routing, data source and failure mode, non-behaviors) with the core purpose front-loaded. No filler.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description supplies everything needed: what is returned conceptually, where it comes from, how failure manifests, and what the tool will not do. Annotations carry the safety profile.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single slug parameter already documents its origin in list_recent_uoinks/search_uoinks. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: reads the stored per-section extraction health of a saved capture. It is clearly distinct from get_transcript_reliability, which is named as serving a different diagnostic question.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger (diagnose missing or failed capture sections) and names the alternative with the condition that selects it (questionable transcript spans -> get_transcript_reliability). It also sets a boundary: no retry and no recompute.

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