cfg_check_compat

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavior. It explains what it reports (missing modules, deprecations, defaults) but does not specify if it is read-only or if it requires any permissions. It implies a non-destructive check but lacks explicit assurance.

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 brief and well-structured: a clear intro, bullet points of checks, and a usage note. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 (not shown but known from context), the description appropriately focuses on inputs and behavior. It covers the key aspects of what the tool does, though it could mention if the config must be valid or if there are limitations.

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 description compensates by explaining each parameter: config_content is the text to check, target_version is the target version. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's title and type.

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 a config for incompatibilities with a target OpenSIPS version, listing specific items (non-existent modules, deprecated parameters, defaults). It distinguishes itself from sibling tool cfg_migrate_plan.

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 advises pairing with cfg_migrate_plan and suggests running compat first. This provides usage order guidance, though it does not explicitly list when not to use it or alternatives beyond that pairing.

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