check_config

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it declares read-only semantics, that no validation is performed, the prerequisite that the manifest must exist inside the server working directory, and the hard failure mode otherwise. It stops short of describing idempotency or performance/IO characteristics, but covers the safety-relevant behavior.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then usage routing, then prerequisites and returns. The return-field enumeration is long but earns its place because no output schema exists. Slightly dense, but no filler sentences.

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?

No output schema means the description must enumerate return values, and it does (manifest_path, version_ok, loaded counts, loading_errors, warnings). Combined with the stated prerequisites and failure conditions, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly, which is unusual for a tool with no annotations.

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?

One parameter at 100% schema coverage, so the schema already documents the absolute-path requirement and the working-directory rejection. The description restates the same constraint rather than adding format, default, or resolution detail, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Load and inspect a Precis project configuration file') plus a scope qualifier ('without validating data') that immediately separates it from the sibling validate_data. An agent can distinguish it from describe_constraints and infer_schema without opening any schema.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('when validate_data fails') and a diagnostic purpose (unsupported version, missing files, dangling references), naming the alternative sibling outright. This is exactly the when/when-not/alternative routing an agent needs.

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