run_vander_checks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the return shape (id/result/detail rows plus failures with expected/actual/body snippet), the safety gate on destructive probes, and crucially that probes never capture variables or replace the session's last response. The remaining gap is it doesn't state timeout behavior or permission requirements.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose in the first clause, then return shape, then behavioral/safety constraints. Dense but every sentence carries information. Slightly long sentences but no filler.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates well by describing both the per-check rows and the failures structure. It covers the destructive-probe safety model and side-effect guarantees. Only timeoutMs semantics and workspaceRoot resolution are left unexplained.

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 coverage is 71%, so the baseline is around 3. The description adds meaning to includeDestructive (the user-consent requirement) and confirms maxDurationMs governs the Responsiveness check, but requestId and timeoutMs are undocumented in both places. Net value added over the schema is modest.

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: 'Execute the automatic VANDER checks for one requestId.' An agent knows exactly what the tool does. However, it does not distinguish itself from the close siblings plan_vander_checks or summon_vander, so an agent cannot tell from the description alone which of the three to pick.

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?

Provides real guidance for one parameter (state-changing probes are skipped unless includeDestructive is true, and the user must be asked first), which is actionable. But there is no explicit when-to-use guidance relative to alternatives like execute_api_request or plan_vander_checks. Usage is largely implied.

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