lcm_precheck

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 claims 'read-safe validation' but begins with '[WRITE][risk=medium],' creating an internal contradiction. It does not mention side effects, permissions, or failure modes, leaving behavior unclear.

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, front-loading the main action and risk level, followed by a structured parameter list. Every sentence serves a purpose, though the embedded '[WRITE]' tag could be considered clutter.

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 absence of output schema and annotations, the description covers purpose and parameters adequately but lacks details on what the precheck returns (e.g., success, issues) and how to interpret results. It is minimally viable but leaves gaps.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by listing all three parameters with helpful context: cluster_ext_id references cluster_list, entity_ext_ids links to lcm_inventory, and target explains omission behavior. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema titles.

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 'Run LCM prechecks for entities on a cluster (read-safe validation),' specifying the action and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like lcm_inventory (list) and lcm_update (apply), though the '[WRITE]' tag slightly confuses the read-safe claim.

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 labels it as 'read-safe validation' but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like lcm_inventory or lcm_update. It implies prechecks before updates but lacks direct guidance on prerequisites or exclusions.

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