preflight

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

The description explicitly says 'Read-only check', which discloses the non-destructive nature of the tool. However, with no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention what happens on failure, whether it returns detailed diagnostics, or any side effects (though read-only implies none). The read-only disclosure is valuable but incomplete.

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 sentence that front-loads the read-only nature and lists the specific resources checked. No wasted words; every part of the sentence adds information.

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 zero-parameter read-only check with an output schema present, the description is largely complete. It names all the components being checked. It could be improved by stating when to run it (e.g., before starting a run), but the output schema likely covers return values. The main gap is usage timing, which is minor for a preflight 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 tool has 0 parameters, so the schema provides no parameter information. The description compensates by listing the specific items being checked (game bridge, game version, Kev model list, Luna key readiness), which gives an agent a clear idea of what the tool inspects. With 0 params, baseline 4 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('check') and resource ('local game bridge, local game version, Kev model list and Luna key readiness'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that get snapshots, plan routes, or execute proposals. It lacks a title but the description is specific enough to identify the tool's purpose.

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 implies this is a pre-flight readiness check to be run before other operations, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. The context signals show no annotations, so the description carries the burden, but it only implies usage rather than stating it.

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