files_health

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions a fix operation (rebuild) but does not clarify if it is destructive, requires exclusive access, or has side effects. The read/write nature of the default check is also ambiguous.

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 (one sentence plus a directive). It is front-loaded but lacks structure or separation of details. While not verbose, it could benefit from expanding to cover parameters and usage context without becoming overly long.

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 schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, what 'DB integrity' entails, or what 'FTS5 sync check' means. The agent lacks critical context to use the tool correctly, especially for the timeout and database parameters.

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 has 3 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description only explains 'rebuild' (set to True to fix drift), which adds meaning. However, 'timeout' and 'database' are left completely unexplained, leaving the agent without guidance on their purpose or valid values.

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 the tool performs 'DB integrity + FTS5 sync check' and can 'fix drift' with rebuild=True. This explicitly defines the verb (check/fix) and resource (DB integrity, FTS5 sync), distinguishing it from sibling tools like files_get or files_index which serve different purposes.

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 versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, typical scenarios, or when not to use it. Sibling tools exist (e.g., files_get, files_search) but the description offers no comparison or context for selection.

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