get_project_health

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds the type of data returned (state distribution, health metrics, resolved issues) but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as permission requirements or output shape. Since annotations cover the safety profile, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 concise and well-organized: a one-line summary followed by a clear list of parameter explanations. It contains no filler or redundant statements, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 presence of an output schema and strong annotations, the description covers the essential parameter semantics and the high-level result content. It does not explain when to use the tool or how it differs from related dashboards, but for a read-only reporting tool with a rich output schema, the provided information is mostly complete.

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%, so the description must compensate for the lack of parameter documentation. It does so by providing a short explanation for each parameter: project short name, period for resolved issues, comma-separated regex to exclude, and optional instance. This is sufficient for an agent to understand what each parameter means, though not deeply detailed.

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 produces a 'Project health report' with state distribution, health metrics, and recently resolved issues. The verb is implied by the tool name and the description focuses on the resource and content. It does not explicitly differentiate from similar reporting siblings like get_team_dashboard, but the scope is clear enough for an agent to understand its purpose.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternative reporting tools such as get_team_dashboard or get_issues_digest. The description only states what the tool does, not the conditions under which it should be selected over others. Sibling tools are not referenced at all.

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