aiworkhub_source_graph_health

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description restates READ-ONLY plus adds the meaningful status taxonomy (indexing/ready/degraded). Beyond that it says little about behavior, and the returned last report/error/time fields largely duplicate what the output schema already covers.

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 sentence with the read-only and scope constraints front-loaded and no wasted words.

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 zero-argument, read-only status query with an output schema and readOnlyHint, the description covers what an agent needs to select and call it. Only the lack of guidance on what to do with a degraded result keeps it from a 5.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain; the baseline for a no-arg tool 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?

Names a specific resource (Source Graph indexing daemon) and scope (active repository) and enumerates the status vocabulary it reports. It is distinguishable from ensure_started/stop/refresh by the word 'health,' but it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 phrase 'for the active repository' implies the context of use, and the health-check framing implies when to call it. However, it gives no explicit when/when-not guidance or routing versus siblings like aiworkhub_source_graph_ensure_started, aiworkhub_source_graph_refresh_now, or aiworkhub_dispatcher_health.

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