haops_work_entity_health_check

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, if it has side effects, or if it requires specific permissions. It only vaguely mentions the output format (findings with severity and recommendations) but lacks details on rate limits, error behavior, or what constitutes 'stale' or 'inconsistent.' This is insufficient for safe and accurate agent invocation.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence immediately states the action and scope, and the second describes the output format. It is front-loaded and earns its place by being both brief and informative, making it easy for an AI agent to quickly parse the tool's core function.

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 5 parameters (none required) and no output schema, the description is somewhat brief. It identifies the type of output (findings with severity) but does not provide examples, structure, or guarantee the completeness of the returned data. For a diagnostic tool, more detail on the format and utility of findings would be beneficial for context. However, the parameter descriptions in the schema partially compensate, resulting in an adequate but not comprehensive description.

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 input schema already provides full parameter descriptions with 100% coverage, including enum values for verbosity and entityType, and defaults. The description does not add any new semantic meaning beyond what is in the schema. For instance, it does not clarify how parameters interact or the exact impact of verbosity levels. Given high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description is not needed for parameter comprehension but also does not enhance it.

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 action 'Run health checks on work entities' and specifies the purpose: 'detect stale, inconsistent, or problematic states.' It also mentions the output 'findings with severity and recommendations.' This verb-resource pair distinguishes it from sibling tools, which are primarily CRUD or retrieval operations, making the tool's unique purpose evident.

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 the tool is for diagnostic purposes but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusion criteria. While the purpose is clear, the lack of contextual usage instructions leaves room for ambiguity, especially given the presence of similar health check tools like haops_get_protocol_health.

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