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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It describes what the tool verifies and that it returns score and nextStep, but it does not disclose whether the tool has any side effects (e.g., modifying files, requiring special permissions, or executing non-read-only commands). Since it is primarily a check, this is a minor gap, but more transparency about potential side effects would be beneficial.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences that pack essential information: what the tool does, specific checks it performs, what it returns, and when to call it. No redundant or vague wording is present.

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 that there is no output schema, the description appropriately mentions the return values (score and nextStep). It covers the tool's purpose, key parameters, and usage context, making it sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly without additional information.

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 already covers all 7 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), but the tool description adds valuable context beyond the schema. For example, workspace_id is noted as 'Required - must be passed explicitly when HW_WORKSPACE_ID is not set', and framework_type is tied to 'cross-platform' for QR code checks. This enhances understanding and correct usage.

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 tool's purpose: running a deployment completeness check on the sandbox, listing specific verification items (nginx, output directory, tunnel, QR code), and indicating it should be called at the end of a deployment workflow. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like deploy_nginx or check_user.

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 provides a usage scenario ('Call this at the end of a deployment workflow to confirm everything is working before reporting success.'). It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to make the correct choice.

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