generate_health_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully covers behavior: it reads persisted artifacts, returns HTML+markdown, lists missing sections, and describes the redact parameter's effect. It does not mention side effects or authorization, but as a read-only composition, this is sufficient.

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?

Three sentences efficiently convey purpose, prerequisite, return structure, and parameter effect. The first sentence is dense with clauses, but every part adds value. Minor improvement could be breaking into points, but it remains clear.

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?

Given the low parameter count (1), no output schema, and many siblings, the description provides all necessary context: prerequisite, output shape, parameter behavior, and handling of missing data. It leaves no gaps for this tool's role.

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% with a clear description for the single boolean parameter. The tool description adds useful context: redact=true strips evidence excerpts while keeping paths for NDA-safe sharing, going beyond the schema's brief explanation.

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 specifies the verb 'Compose' and resource 'design-health report', lists included audits (app quality, UX tenets/traps, etc.), and distinguishes from siblings by naming the prerequisite diagnose_app_quality. It is specific and actionable.

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 states the prerequisite (run diagnose_app_quality or CLI audits) and notes that missing sections are listed, not silently omitted. It advises that the output is static content for writing anywhere. No explicit 'when not to use' but context strongly implies this tool is for report generation after audits.

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