haops_get_protocol_health

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It clearly describes the tool as a read operation returning health data with a server configuration requirement. Does not mention pagination or performance implications, but for a diagnostic read, the description is transparent enough.

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?

Two sentences plus a requirement line, no fluff. Front-loaded with the core purpose, efficient and well-structured.

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?

With no output schema, the description gives a good sense of return data (missing UUIDs, deprecated refs, etc.) and connects to the UI. Could mention snapshot metadata format, but sufficient for a simple diagnostic 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to add extra parameter details. It does not elaborate on parameters beyond the schema, which is acceptable given high coverage. Baseline 3.

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?

Description clearly states it returns per-role composed-protocol health, listing specific data types (missing skill UUIDs, deprecated references, etc.) and references the UI panel, distinguishing it from sibling tools like haops_read_protocol or haops_get_protocol_spawn_lines.

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?

Mentions the required server flag (ENABLE_COMPOSED_PROTOCOLS=true) and states it surfaces the same data as the UI panel, providing clear context. Does not explicitly list when not to use or compare to alternatives like haops_work_entity_health_check, but sufficient for a read-only diagnostic tool.

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