check_il2cpp

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

The description explains the behavior of the optional parameter (returns server status if empty) and the return type (version + per-table counts). No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose side effects, error conditions, or performance implications, but for a read tool it is moderately transparent.

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 extremely concise, with two sentences and a clear Args section. No redundant information. It front-loads the core purpose and then explains the parameter. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main functionality. However, it does not specify the format of the return value (e.g., JSON structure), which may leave the agent guessing. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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 describes the sole parameter 'metadata_path' as optional and explains the behavior when empty. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema, which only lists the parameter name and type.

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 action: 'Read the metadata header and return version + per-table counts.' It clearly identifies the resource and output. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like get_assembly_types or get_methods, which may have overlapping functionality. The purpose is clear but lacks differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies it is a basic check, but does not explicitly state use cases, prerequisites, or when to choose another tool like list_classes or get_images.

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