report_guidance_health

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal an important nuance: the Hub cannot independently verify the client's state, so the tool records a client-supplied result. However, it does not mention whether this is a write/overwrite operation, whether it validates input, or what happens if called before verification.

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 three short, purposeful sentences. The core purpose is front-loaded, the usage condition is immediate, and every sentence contributes meaning without redundant phrasing.

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 covers purpose and invocation timing, and the presence of an output schema partially compensates for return-value details. Still, an agent is left guessing how to populate source, project_slug, and workspace_path, and whether omitted version fields should be null or filled. It is usable but not fully self-contained.

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 0% and the description does not explain any of the six parameters. The phrase 'versions of Hub guidance' loosely maps to the three version fields, but source, project_slug, workspace_path, and how defaults interact are left undefined. The property names are self-explanatory to a degree, but the description adds too little value for a 6-parameter tool.

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 opening sentence 'Record versions of Hub guidance a local client actually verified' names a specific action and resource, and the scope is clearly limited to locally verified results. It also distinguishes this from other tools by emphasizing the client-side provenance, which no sibling description does.

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?

'Call only after the client itself inspected managed markers or ran a local doctor/setup check' is an explicit precondition, and the explanation that the Hub cannot inspect the client's checkout gives a strong rationale. It lacks a named alternative or an explicit when-not-to-use clause, but the usage context is unusually clear.

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