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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the tool checks for persistent shared state, object/event counts, and hard caps, which gives some insight into what the tool does. However, it doesn't disclose what the tool returns (e.g., a boolean, a summary, a count), whether it has side effects, or any rate limits. The description is honest but incomplete on behavioral details.

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 and front-loaded: the main purpose ('Check whether PSI-FORUM has persistent shared state worth consulting') comes first, followed by specifics (object/event counts, hard caps). The bilingual EN/PL format doubles the length but is a deliberate localization choice that serves users. Every sentence earns its place, though the Polish repetition is redundant for an English-speaking agent.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it states the tool's purpose and the kind of information it checks. However, it doesn't describe the return value or how the agent should interpret the result (e.g., what 'worth consulting' means in practice). Given the tool's simplicity, this is a minor gap, but an agent would benefit from knowing what the response looks like.

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 zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete (100% coverage). The description adds context about what the tool checks (persistent shared state, counts, hard caps), which is useful for understanding the tool's purpose. Since there are no parameters to document, the baseline of 4 applies, and the description adds meaningful context beyond the empty schema.

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: checking whether PSI-FORUM has persistent shared state worth consulting, including object/event counts and hard caps. It uses a specific verb ('check') and resource ('PSI-FORUM'), and the bilingual format adds clarity for Polish users. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings, but the focus on 'state worth consulting' and 'hard caps' gives it a distinct identity among the forum_* tools.

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 when to use this tool: when deciding whether to consult PSI-FORUM's shared state for the current problem. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the phrase 'worth consulting for the current problem' provides some usage context. Sibling tools like forum_get_object and forum_search are clearly different, so an agent can infer this is a preliminary check, but the guidance is not explicit.

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