files_health

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behaviors. It mentions a check and a rebuild action, but does not describe potential side effects (e.g., time consumption, data modification during rebuild), failure modes, or the effect of timeout and database parameters.

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?

The description is extremely concise with one sentence, which is efficient, but it omits essential information about parameters and usage, making it under-specified rather than effectively concise.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, how rebuild works, the effect of database selection, or timeout behavior. It fails to provide a complete understanding of the tool's capabilities and constraints.

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 0%, so the description must explain all parameters. Only 'rebuild' is mentioned. 'timeout' and 'database' have no description, leaving their purpose and acceptable values unclear.

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 clearly states it performs a DB integrity and FTS5 sync check, and mentions the rebuild capability. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like files_search and files_index by focusing on health rather than data retrieval or indexing, though it does not explicitly contrast them.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool over alternatives, or any prerequisites or conditions. The description implies using rebuild to fix drift but does not explain when that is appropriate or what the default behavior is.

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