get_resource_health

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by explaining score ranges (0-100, -1 unknown) and color per badge, which goes beyond annotations. It does not cover all behavioral aspects (e.g., performance or error conditions) but is sufficient for a read operation.

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 (6 lines), front-loaded with a clear header, and organized with separate sections for purpose, badge details, and args. Every sentence provides necessary information 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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately explains return values (scores, range, color). It lacks explicit error handling or pagination details, but for a simple get operation this is sufficient. The description could benefit from a brief note on why to use this over get_resource_riskbadge.

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 fully compensates. It clearly explains both parameters: resource_id as 'The resource UUID' and target as 'Optional Aria Operations target name from config' with default behavior. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare 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?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves health, risk, and efficiency badge scores for a resource, distinguishing it from siblings like get_resource (general info) and get_resource_riskbadge (probably risk-only). However, it could more explicitly differentiate from similar tools.

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 explains the badge scoring and the optional target parameter, but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance versus sibling tools. It implies usage context but lacks definitive selection criteria.

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