Checks all public bot files against the 6 mandatory universal standards: (1) thinking message with 3-sec delay, (2) persistent typing indicator, (3) owner self-identification, (4) acceptance philosophy in prompt, (5) read receipts, (6) session summary extraction. Returns pass/fail per bot per standard.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bot | No | Check a specific bot file path, or omit to check all 10 public bots |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, confirming safe, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context: it checks all public bot files, lists the 6 standards, and notes the optional parameter to check a specific bot. This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.
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, consisting of two sentences that front-load the purpose and list the standards efficiently. Every sentence contributes meaningful 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 the tool's complexity (checking against 6 standards with optional parameter) and the lack of an output schema, the description adequately explains the return format ('pass/fail per bot per standard') and the scope (all public bots or specific one). It provides sufficient context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
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 coverage is 100% with a clear description of the 'bot' parameter. The tool description reinforces this by explaining the default behavior (omit to check all 10) and the meaning of providing a specific bot path. It adds the list of standards, which is not in the schema, enhancing understanding.
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 all public bot files against 6 specified mandatory universal standards, returning pass/fail per bot per standard. It uses a specific verb ('checks') and resource ('public bot files'), and the listed standards effectively distinguish it from siblings.
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 when to use (checking compliance of bot files) and explains default behavior (omit to check all 10). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or provide direct alternatives among the many sibling tools, which would have made it a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but there is some overlap among multiple audit/check tools (e.g., accountability_check, drift_audit, security_audit). However, descriptions and naming help differentiate their specific scopes, so ambiguity is low.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., check_archive_safety, propagate_family_member), making them predictable and easy to understand.
33 tools is on the high side, but the server covers a broad domain (system health, audits, propagation, session management, etc.). The count is justified by the comprehensive scope, though it may feel heavy for agents.
The tool set covers the entire lifecycle of system management: health monitoring, audits, propagation, sessions, compliance, and more. No obvious gaps for the stated purpose of a nervous system framework.
