check_required_fields

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a fast, required-fields-only check and gives the return shape {pass, missing}, which is useful. It says nothing about what 'pass' signifies, how 'missing' is structured, or behavior on malformed input.

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 the 'Fast gate' framing, then a terse Args/Returns block with no filler. Efficient, though the docstring-style structure is slightly formulaic for a two-sentence tool.

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 and no annotations, so the description has to do more; it does supply the return keys, which covers the biggest gap. It still leaves the nested server_json shape and the semantics of 'missing' unexplained.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate; it does name and gloss both parameters ('server_json: server.json contents', 'spec_version: target spec version'). However the glosses largely restate the schema titles, and for a nested object with additionalProperties the description gives no hint about expected contents or structure.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('check required fields') and scopes it explicitly with 'only' and 'Fast gate', which implicitly contrasts it with the broader audit_server_json sibling. It stops short of naming that sibling, so an agent still has to infer the split between this and the full audit.

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?

'Fast gate' signals a lightweight pre-check rather than a full validation, which implies usage, but no explicit when-to-use/when-not or named alternative (e.g., audit_server_json) is given. The agent must infer when this is preferable to the sibling tools.

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