The walk-around checks on the method page, in the same order. The desk uses these before an introduction. This is not the OSHA daily exam.
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": "list_walkaround_checks"
}
}| 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description's added value is the ordering guarantee ("in the same order"), but the referent of "same order" is ambiguous and nothing is said about volume, paging, or response shape. Reasonable but thin on top of the annotations.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the subject of the call. No filler, though the second and third sentences lean on undefined terms ("the desk," "the method page") rather than clarifying the first.
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?
With no parameters and no output schema, the description is the only place an agent can learn what a walk-around check actually is and what fields come back, and it doesn't say. The ordering note and the OSHA distinction are helpful but leave the return content unspecified for a tool whose payload is entirely undocumented elsewhere.
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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond what the empty schema already communicates. Baseline 4 applies.
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 walk-around checks on the method page" identifies the resource and implies enumeration (the name supplies the verb), but "method page" is unexplained domain jargon, so an agent can't be fully sure what set of objects comes back. It does differentiate the concept from "the OSHA daily exam," which is genuinely useful disambiguation.
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 desk uses these before an introduction" gives a concrete usage context, and "This is not the OSHA daily exam" is an explicit exclusion of a similar-sounding alternative. It falls short of 5 only because the excluded alternative is a concept rather than one of the listed sibling tools, so the routing is implicit.
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.