system_check_config

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It states 'validate' which implies non-destructive review, but does not clarify side effects, permission requirements, or what occurs on failure. This is insufficient for a validation tool.

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?

Single sentence with no filler, directly conveying the tool's purpose. Every word is necessary.

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?

Given zero parameters and presence of an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It lacks explicit statement that validation does not modify configuration, but the verb 'validate' implies non-action. Contextual completeness is high for the tool's simplicity.

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 parameters, so schema description coverage is 100%. Per guidelines, 0 params yields baseline 4. The description does not add parameter info (none exist), so no deduction.

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 clearly states the tool validates Home Assistant configuration, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'files_validate_yaml_content' (which validates YAML files specifically) and 'services_reload_config' (which reloads config, not validate).

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 indicates usage 'before restart', providing context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or recommend alternatives among siblings like 'system_restart_ha' or 'services_reload_config'. Usage is implied but not comprehensive.

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