trw_pipeline_health

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: all probes are read-only and fail-open individually. It details what each signal checks (sync_push, graph_edges, etc.) and the output structure, leaving no ambiguity about safety or behavior.

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?

Efficient and well-structured: front-loaded with purpose, followed by usage conditions, then detailed signal checks. Every line earns its place without redundancy.

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?

Despite no output schema or annotations, the description fully covers the return format (degraded flag, advisory, per-signal details) and documents all five signal checks. Complete for a parameterless, read-only probe tool.

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?

Input schema has zero parameters (100% coverage trivially), so the description adds all necessary meaning. It explains the structured output and per-signal sub-dicts, which is entirely beyond the schema.

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?

Description clearly states it probes five specific pipeline signals and returns a structured report with degraded flag and advisory. Tool name aligns with purpose, and the detailed breakdown distinguishes it from sibling tools like trw_probe or trw_status.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use scenarios: when trw_session_start returns a pipeline_health_advisory, or for routine health checks. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the guidance is clear and actionable.

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