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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait of not executing the command, which is critical for safety. It does not mention output format or potential side effects, but for a simple check tool this is reasonably transparent.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous words. It clearly states the action, resource, and a key constraint, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

For a tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, what it does not do, and the type of input. It lacks explicit usage guidance relative to sibling tools, but this is minor for a simple check tool.

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 schema describes the parameter as 'The exact command text to inspect', and the description adds that it is a 'planned shell or hcloud command', providing context about the command type and its planned status. This goes slightly beyond the schema's generic phrasing.

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 verb 'Check' and the resource 'a planned shell or hcloud command', and specifies the scope as 'against Huawei Cloud hook risk rules'. It also explicitly notes 'without executing it', which differentiates it from execution tools like run_approved_command and plan_cli_command.

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 this tool is for pre-execution validation by saying 'without executing it', and the sibling set includes planning and execution tools. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it instead of alternatives like plan_cli_command or run_approved_command, nor does it mention any exclusions.

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