Check ci lifecycle lease expired

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the mild hint that the check is scoped to the requester's identity, which implies auth context but is not elaborated.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though its brevity stems partly from under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

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 check/predicate tool with no output schema, the description should at minimum indicate the nature of the result (e.g., a boolean or status). It also leaves the two undocumented parameters unexplained, so an agent cannot tell what a valid invocation looks like.

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?

Two parameters (params, params_json) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description says nothing about them. With named, self-documenting parameters this would be less critical, but 'params'/'params_json' are opaque catch-alls, so the description should compensate and does not.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: it determines whether a CI lifecycle lease has expired. This is enough to distinguish it from write-oriented siblings like extend_ci_lifecycle_lease. However, it never names or contrasts with those siblings, and 'for the requester' is ambiguous about whose lease is being checked.

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 only asserts what the tool does; it gives no when-to-use context, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. A natural sibling, servicenow_extend_ci_lifecycle_lease, is not mentioned even though the two are clearly related (check-then-extend).

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