haops_get_test_health

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states the return data types but does not disclose behavioral traits like read-only nature, side effects, permissions required, or rate limits. The description is insufficient for an unannotated tool.

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 sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. It efficiently communicates the core function and return types, though could be more structured (e.g., listing return fields). No wasted 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?

The tool has 3 parameters (1 required), no output schema, and no annotations. The description lists key return data (pass rates, trend, recent failures, coverage data) but does not specify format or structure. It is adequate for a simple read tool but leaves some ambiguity about the exact response shape.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the context 'for a project or specific entity', which implies filtering by entityId and entityType, but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema descriptions. Adequate but not enhancing.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'aggregated test health summary', specifying what it returns (pass rates, trend, recent failures, coverage data). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like haops_get_protocol_health and haops_work_entity_health_check by focusing on test health.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusion criteria, and no context about prerequisites or scenarios. With many sibling tools, the lack of usage guidance leaves the agent uncertain about selection.

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