check_vibration_alert

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool classifies the reading and returns an alert result. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, if any state changes occur, or what error handling looks like. The verb 'check' implies non-destructive behavior, but explicit clarification is lacking.

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 concise and well-structured with an Args/Returns pattern. It briefly describes each parameter. The inclusion of the ctx parameter for MCP context is slightly technical but acceptable. Overall, every sentence adds value without verbosity.

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 presence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. It covers the input parameters adequately. However, it lacks error scenarios, edge cases, or constraints on input values. The tool is specific among many vibration siblings, but without usage guidance, the completeness is merely adequate.

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%, so the description must compensate. It clearly explains rms_velocity (in mm/s), machine_group (ISO group 1 or 2, default 2), and support_type (rigid or flexible, default rigid). This adds meaningful context beyond the basic type information in the schema. No information on possible values or constraints beyond defaults.

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 checks an RMS velocity against ISO 10816 thresholds, classifying into zones A/B/C/D and returning alert levels. The specific verb 'check' and resource 'vibration alert' combined with the standard reference make the purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools that focus on FFT, envelope, or trend analysis.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool over alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use, or context where other tools like assess_vibration_severity or evaluate_iso_20816 might be more appropriate. The description only explains what the tool does, not when it should be invoked.

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