pool_checks

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

Annotations already mark this as readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds the concrete statement that the tool never rotates, starts the vault, or signs – behavior not covered by the annotations. This reinforces the passive nature of the check and gives agents confidence about side-effect-free invocation.

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 two sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by a compact list of concrete check subjectsabb, and the safety boundary is stated in a short final sentence. Every word earns its place.

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 covers what it checks, that it is read-only, and what it will never do. The only unaddressed area is the exact return shape (e.g., pass/fail or detailed report), but this is a minor gap given the simple no-input nature and the safety 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?

The input schema has zero properties and zero required parameters, so with 0 params the baseline is 4. The description contributes no parameter details, but none are needed because the tool takes no arguments. There are no schema-documentation gaps to compensate for.

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 begins with 'Read-only readiness checks,' a specific verb-noun combination, then enumerates the exact resources being checked: binary pins, public certificate signature, clock, storage, relay and standby witnesses. The closing sentence explicitly separates this tool from rotation and vault-starting operations, making the purpose highly distinguishable from siblings like rotation_execute.

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 gives clear negative usage guidance ('Never rotates, starts the vault or signs'), which prevents misuse. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools like rotation_execute or pool_status for when rotation or status queries are needed. Usage is implied through the exclusions rather than positively flagged with alternatives.

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