Report configured integrations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds behavioral context: that the tool checks configuration and that the 'probe' parameter triggers actual contact with servers. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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, clearly structured. The first sentence defines the tool's output, the second gives a usage directive. No unnecessary words; every sentence adds value.

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?

The description explains what the tool reports (configuration status) and why it matters (which modes/outputs are available). It lacks a detailed return structure, but since there is no output schema, the description provides enough high-level context for a simple tool.

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?

The schema already has 100% description coverage for the single parameter. The description adds meaning by explaining that 'probe' means actually contacting the services, which enhances understanding. The tool description itself does not repeat parameter details but adds context.

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 configuration of DataHub, GitHub, target repository, and dbt, and indicates which evidence modes and outputs are available. It uses specific verbs and resources, distinguishing it from sibling tools like praxis_prepare_remediation or praxis_get_run.

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 'Call this before choosing 'live' mode,' providing clear when-to-use guidance. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but the context is sufficient for most agents.

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