healthcheck

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly identifies the tool as a read-only check ('check vault accessibility') and describes the output. While it could mention performance or error handling, for a simple health check this is sufficient.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and output. Every word adds value.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains the return values. It could mention handling of an inaccessible vault, but the core information is provided. The tool is simple and the description is complete enough for an agent.

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?

There are no parameters, so the description adds meaning beyond the empty schema by specifying the return statistics. Baseline 4 applies as the zero-parameter case.

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 checks vault accessibility and returns specific statistics (note counts by type/status, active projects, areas, decisions). It uses a specific verb-resource pair and distinguishes from sibling tools that perform CRUD operations on notes or projects.

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 usage for checking vault health and state but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusion criteria. Given the sibling tools are content-focused, the context is clear but not explicit.

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