Pre-flight readiness check. Run before any other tool. Verifies secrets, KV, DB connectivity, and KB version + freshness. Returns a structured readiness report.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds meaningful context about what is verified (secrets, KV, DB, KB) and that it returns a structured report, which goes beyond 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?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and every sentence provides value. No redundancy or unnecessary words.
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 has no parameters, no output schema, and annotations are present, the description fully covers what the tool does and when to use it. It is complete for the agent to understand its role.
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 no parameters, and the input schema coverage is 100%. According to guidelines, baseline is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter information.
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 explicitly states a 'pre-flight readiness check' that verifies specific resources (secrets, KV, DB, KB) and returns a report. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools, as it is meant to run before others.
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 says 'Run before any other tool,' providing clear when-to-use guidance. It also outlines what is verified, implying this is a prerequisite for other tools.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: accessibility routes, general routes, access checks, room finding, nearby amenities, operational overview, day planning, prohibited items, and readiness check. No overlap or ambiguity.
All tool names use lowercase snake_case and are descriptive. While most follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., check_access, find_room), a few are noun-only (nearby, overview), but the overall pattern is consistent and predictable.
9 tools is well within the ideal range for a domain-specific server. Each tool serves a necessary function without redundancy, and the count feels appropriate for the Capitol complex navigation and visitor support domain.
The tool set covers core domains: navigation, accessibility, room lookup, amenities, security restrictions, and day planning. Minor gaps like event scheduling or tour information exist, but the essential use cases are well-covered.