stats

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. The terms 'health summary', 'inspect', and listing read-only outputs strongly imply a non-destructive, read-only operation. Though it doesn't explicitly state 'no side effects', the context is clear enough for an agent.

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 three concise sentences: purpose, use case, and output details. It is front-loaded with the main action and contains no unnecessary words or repetition.

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 simple tool (one parameter, output schema exists), the description fully covers what it returns and the scope. It mentions all key output elements (count, breakdown, domains, timestamps) and the namespace scope, making it complete for its purpose.

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% coverage with a description for the single parameter 'namespace'. The tool description does not add meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 returns a 'quick health summary' for a namespace, specifying the exact data it provides (total item count, kind breakdown, top domains, timestamps). This verb+resource combination is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'browse' or 'export' which serve different purposes.

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 explicitly advises using this tool to inspect the bridge without opening SQLite, giving clear context. While it doesn't list alternatives or when not to use it, the guidance is sufficient for an agent to understand its appropriate application.

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