icp_preflight_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It clearly indicates this is a validation/read-only operation ('Validates...') and specifies what is checked, which implies no destructive side effects. It does not describe error behavior or return format, but for a preflight check the described behavior is adequately 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 a single, information-dense sentence with no filler. It front-loads the primary purpose and then compactly lists validation areas, making every word earn 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?

For a preflight check tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential context: when to use it and what it validates. It does not disclose return values or failure behavior, but this is a relatively simple check tool; the provided detail is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds some contextual meaning—'existing code' maps to wasm_path, and 'deployment mode safety' maps to mode—but it does not provide explicit parameter-level guidance beyond what the schema offers, matching the baseline for full coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Run comprehensive preflight checks') tied to a clear resource ('before deploying to a canister'), and enumerates the exact validation scope (controller status, cycles, existing code, deployment mode safety). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like icp_controller_check or icp_deploy.

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 'before deploying to a canister' establishes clear usage context, and listing the checked dimensions implies it should precede icp_deploy or icp_install_code. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, though 'preflight' makes the intended timing obvious.

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