aiworkhub_dashboard_health

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the summary's 'READ-ONLY' prefix is partly redundant, but the description adds real value beyond the annotation by disclosing that it probes cached observability and deliberately does not build the full queue snapshot or mutate repository state. It does not discuss error surfaces (e.g., what a not_initialized status looks like), which is a minor gap; an output schema exists so return shape needn't be described here.

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?

Two short paragraphs, front-loaded with the purpose and then the routing guidance. The only waste is minor redundancy between 'READ-ONLY' and 'without ... mutating repository state', which restates the annotation.

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 parameterless read-only probe with an output schema and readOnly annotation, everything an agent needs is present: what is checked, the cost profile (fast/lightweight), the sibling alternatives, and the precondition escalation path to initialize. Nothing material is missing.

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 and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies no input is needed by describing the check as scoped to the active repository.

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 names a specific verb set (storage readiness, manager identity, dispatcher health check) and an explicit scope (the active repository). An agent can distinguish it from aiworkhub_dashboard_snapshot and aiworkhub_dashboard_initialize without opening any schema. It also flags the operation as fast and lightweight, which is the distinguishing trait.

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?

It explicitly routes usage: use this for connection-banner polling or pre-initialization checks; use snapshot when task queue counts, process rows, or cost summaries are needed; use initialize when storage reports not_initialized. That covers when-to-use, when-not, and the named alternatives.

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