check_patch

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden. It sufficiently discloses key traits: deterministic output ('Always `status: OK`'), no external dependencies (pure Python), and return of version. It does not mention error scenarios, but the simplicity warrants a high score.

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 two sentences long, front-loads the primary action, and contains no redundant information. Every sentence earns its place.

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 the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema), the description is mostly complete. It covers status and version but omits details on return format or potential error conditions. Slightly more detail could warrant a 5.

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?

With 0 parameters, baseline is 4. The description adds value by explaining the tool's return content and lack of dependencies, but parameter semantics are inherently N/A.

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's action ('Return server status + version') and distinguishes it from siblings like 'apply_patch' and 'restore_original' by emphasizing it always returns 'status: OK' and has no external dependencies, making it a safe read-only check.

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 implies usage for checking server status and version, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings like 'sha256_manifest' or in what contexts (e.g., before applying patches). The lack of explicit guidance lowers the score.

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