checker_startThe first question of the Check an agent in four questions decision guide.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "checker_start"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not describe what the tool returns, whether it initiates a flow, asks a question, or changes state—leaving the agent with no behavioral information beyond the title.
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 concise sentence with no waste, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It is short without adding meaningful behavioral or usage detail.
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 annotations, no output schema, and only a positional description, an agent cannot determine what invoking this tool will do, what to expect in response, or how to proceed afterward. Low parameter complexity reduces the burden, but the behavioral vacuum remains significant.
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 tool has zero parameters and the schema has 100% coverage with an empty properties object, so there is no parameter ambiguity for the description to resolve. Baseline 4 applies for parameterless tools.
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 identifies this as the first question of a decision guide, which conveys a clear entry-point role. However, it is a noun phrase rather than a verb+resource statement, and it does not say what actually happens when invoked beyond that positional role.
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 phrase 'first question' implies that this tool starts the guide, but there is no explicit statement of when to use it versus checker_answer or enquiry_* siblings. No conditions, exclusions, or alternative routing are provided.
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.