check_sources

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

Annotations already specify openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context: it checks all data sources from the local machine and reports HTTP status and latency per source. It does not explain timeout behavior or whether failures are aggregated, but it adds more than the structured fields alone.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant phrasing. It immediately states the action, scope, and measured outputs.

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?

With no parameters, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It clearly describes the diagnostic scope and metrics, though it omits explicit guidance about when to invoke it or how failures are represented.

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?

There are zero parameters, so parameter semantics are not applicable; the baseline for zero parameters is 4. The description does not need to document any input arguments.

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 states a specific verb and resource: checking reachability of all data sources from this machine. It also specifies the returned diagnostics (HTTP status and latency per source), making the tool's purpose clear. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools, but the diagnostic purpose is distinct.

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 phrase 'von diesem Rechner aus' implies connectivity diagnostics, so usage is inferable. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusion or prerequisite details.

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