ppsspp_smoke_test

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description reinforces this with 'READ-ONLY. Battery of probes.' It adds useful context about the operation's nature and describes the return shape, which goes beyond what annotations alone convey.

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 compact and well-structured with clear PURPOSE, USAGE, BEHAVIOR, and RETURNS sections. Every sentence earns its place and the key purpose is front-loaded.

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 read-only health-check tool, the description covers what it does, how to invoke it, what it is not for, alternatives, and the return shape. The output schema also exists, so nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents session_id and the optional checks subset with valid values. The description only restates session_id and adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('health check') and resource (session) and enumerates the four concrete checks. It explicitly distinguishes itself from an ISO boot-acceptance test and names the sibling tools to use instead, so an agent can tell it apart from related session/diagnostic 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?

Provides a clear usage context: pass a session_id for a four-point session health check. It explicitly says when NOT to use it ('NOT an ISO boot-acceptance test') and points to alternatives ('use session wait_ready + analyze_log for boot triage').

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