health

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 states 'analyzes' and 'returns' which implies read-only behavior, but does not explicitly state that the tool does not modify the project or discuss any behavioral traits such as permissions or side effects.

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 two concise sentences. The first sentence states the main purpose, and the second adds output details. No unnecessary 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?

Given the tool has 2 optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description adequately covers the analysis categories and the return type (grade and recommendations). It could mention that results are dependent on the project state, but overall it is complete enough.

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 schema has 100% coverage for both parameters with clear descriptions. The tool description does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 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 clearly states the tool gets a 'comprehensive health score' and lists exactly what it analyzes (configuration, code quality, structure, documentation, testing readiness), with a specific output (grade A-F with recommendations). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'analyze' or 'review'.

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 description implies usage for checking project health but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'analyze' or 'review'. No when-not or alternative tool mentions.

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