get_context_health

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output fields and the checkpoint recommendation behavior, but does not explicitly state that it is a read-only operation or mention any side effects, rate limits, or performance implications.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and enumerating the metrics. The second sentence adds actionable usage context without extraneous detail. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the key metrics and use case adequately. It doesn't detail return format, but listing the metrics is sufficient, and it doesn't need to explain sibling distinctions.

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 has 100% description coverage for the single optional boolean parameter, fully explaining its meaning and default. The tool description does not mention the parameter, but the schema does the heavy lifting, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource 'context health metrics' and enumerates the exact metrics returned (health score, operations count, estimated tokens, session duration, checkpoint recommendation). It is clear but does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_memory.

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 directly states its intended use: 'Use this to monitor context usage and anticipate compaction.' This gives clear context on when to use the tool, though it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or mentions of alternatives.

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