Check Truthfulness Preflight

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by clarifying that it does not call providers and re-runs locally, which are behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide. No contradictions with annotations.

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 consists of two concise sentences that front-load the core action and context. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 5 parameters with 0% schema description coverage and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the parameters or return format, leaving the agent ill-equipped to use the tool correctly. The context about evidence attachment is helpful but incomplete.

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 0%, meaning no parameter descriptions in the schema. The tool has 5 parameters (task, draft, evidence, session_id, response_format). The description only hints at 'evidence' being relevant. It fails to explain the meaning of task, draft, session_id, and response_format, leaving the agent to guess their purpose.

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 verb 'Re-run the local truthfulness preflight' and the resource 'saved session'. It distinguishes this tool from siblings by specifying it runs 'without calling providers' and is useful after attaching evidence, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly says it is 'useful after attaching evidence to confirm whether a prior truthfulness_preflight abort is now supported', providing a clear when-to-use scenario. While it doesn't list alternatives, the sibling tools context shows no other preflight check tool, so the guidance is adequate.

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