Verify Integrations

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the read-only nature, so the description only adds the specific targets and the readiness-report outcome. It does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as failure semantics, timeout behavior, or how readiness is computed, but for a simple connectivity check this is minimally adequate.

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?

One sentence, action-first verb, a clean list of targets, and a clear output expectation. Every word earns its place; there is no filler or redundancy.

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, read-only tool with no output schema, the description is complete. An agent knows exactly what action is performed, which services are involved, and what outcome to expect, so nothing needed for correct invocation 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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema is an empty object, so schema coverage is trivially complete. With no parameters to explain, the description does not need to add parameter-level detail; baseline 4 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Check connectivity') and names all four integration targets (agenticlens, agentic-chaos, agentic-sidecar, ai-operations-spec), plus the expected outcome ('report readiness'). This clearly distinguishes core.verify from general health/status tools like core.health or core.version.

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 provides clear context: use this tool when you need to verify connectivity and readiness of the listed integrations. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the scoped list of targets makes the intended use unambiguous.

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