get_health_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and discloses the key traits: it is a pure read, free, and previews the diagnostic dimensions. It does not mention return format or failure behavior, but for a read-only diagnostic this is adequate.

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 compact, front-loaded with the recommendation and cost/safety qualifiers, then states the function and the key usage warning. No filler.

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 one-parameter, read-only diagnostic, the description covers purpose, timing, safety, and report content. It is slightly incomplete only in not spelling out the episode_id mapping, but the schema's required integer and the tool name make this recoverable.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description never explains episode_id or how it selects the episode's storyboards. The only guidance is the parameter name itself, so the description does not compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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/resource/output: reads storyboards and produces a health report covering duration overruns, motif coverage gaps, and problem shots. This clearly distinguishes the tool from generation and review siblings and leaves no ambiguity about what it does.

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 gives an explicit use-time instruction: check before generating images, fix issues first, and avoid discovering problems only after the film is made. It does not name sibling tools or exclusions, so it falls just short of full routing guidance.

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