session

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description reveals critical behavioral details: it works offline with no device I/O, answers even when the device is down, and its journal/wait state is in-memory and resets on restart. This goes far beyond what annotations provide.

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?

Though moderately long, every sentence carries unique value: main purpose, usage triggers, content summary, data-reset caveat, and sibling differentiation. It is well structured and front-loaded, with no filler.

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?

The description comprehensively covers the tool's output components (target, dry-run state, effect gates, approvals, journal, wait_for_state result) and the critical in-memory caveat. The only gap is the unexplained 'profile' parameter, preventing a perfect score.

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% and the description does not mention the 'profile' parameter at all. While the parameter is optional, its meaning is completely unexplained, leaving an agent to guess whether it selects a target, a profile, or something else.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Report this server's current operating posture.' It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly pairing with 'healthcheck' for device health and 'doctrine' for playbooks, making its niche obvious.

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 explicit guidance on when to call: 'after a context compaction, when resuming a long flow, or before planning act calls.' It also names complementary tools (healthcheck, doctrine), effectively steering an agent toward the right choice without ambiguity.

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