maintenance_check

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Run a maintenance check' and does not disclose whether the check is read-only, what it inspects, whether it can trigger repairs, or what failure modes exist. 'Check' weakly implies non-destructive behavior, but that is not explicit.

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 minimal and front-loaded: one action sentence followed by the argument note. Every sentence earns its place with 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?

The complexity is low and an output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not needed. However, with no annotations and no side-effect disclosure, the agent still lacks enough behavioral context to decide confidently between this and maintenance_fix. It is minimally viable but not complete.

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 only provides 'task' as a string, with 0% description coverage. The description adds meaningful provenance: the task id must come from maintenance_list. For the sole required parameter, this is sufficient guidance.

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 clear action ('Run a maintenance check') and identifies the resource type. It is distinguishable from the maintenance_fix sibling by the word 'check', but it does not explicitly contrast the two.

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 only guidance is that 'task' should be a Task id from maintenance_list, which implies a prerequisite but does not explain when to use this tool versus maintenance_fix or when a maintenance check is appropriate. No alternatives or exclusions are given.

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