run_health_audit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It lists what is audited but gives no indication of read-only behavior, potential side effects, runtime duration, or system impact. As a health audit it's likely safe, but the agent cannot infer this from the description alone.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose and enumerates its coverage in a compact list. Every word earns its place without redundancy.

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?

The description adequately communicates scope with zero parameters, but with no output schema or annotations, it fails to mention what the audit returns, how results are presented, or any caveats (e.g., time to run, permission requirements). This is adequate but has clear gaps for a complex aggregate tool.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema provides complete coverage. The description adds no parameter details, but no parameters exist to elaborate on. The baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb 'run' and clearly identifies the resource as a comprehensive health audit covering compute, memory, storage, battery, SSD wear, and startup items. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_disk_usage or get_battery_health by presenting a broader aggregate scope.

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?

Usage is implied as 'when you want an overall health check' due to the word 'comprehensive' and the listed components, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over individual sibling tools or any exclusions. The description doesn't name alternatives or provide context for decision-making.

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