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

Despite no annotations, the description discloses the full return shape, defines toolsDiscovered, instructs pasting the summary verbatim, and explains the nextStep behavior when ok is false. This is rich behavioral transparency beyond minimal requirements.

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 front-loaded with 'POST-INSTALL HEALTH CHECK' and each sentence earns its place: call timing, return fields, semantic clarification, usage instruction, and failure recovery. It is detailed but not bloated.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description compensates by specifying all return fields, defining toolsDiscovered, dictating the summary handling, and covering the failure path with nextStep. It is fully complete for an agent to invoke and consume 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?

The sole optional parameter workspaceId is fully described in the schema ('Optional workspace id; inferred from bearer auth.') with 100% schema coverage. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline of 3 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 description opens with 'POST-INSTALL HEALTH CHECK,' giving a specific verb and resource. It further states 'Call this exactly once after the agent has wired ChiefLab into the runtime,' clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like chieflab_status and chieflab_connector_status.

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?

Usage is explicitly constrained: 'Call this exactly once after the agent has wired ChiefLab into the runtime' with a link to the bootstrap protocol. It also instructs 'Do NOT list every internal tool — render the summary only,' providing clear behavioral guidelines.

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