Diagnose hardware environment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context by confirming it does not mutate the project and detailing the return format (PASS/WARNING/FAIL/UNVERIFIED checks), which goes beyond the annotations.

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 compact at three sentences, front-loading the core action and providing necessary context without redundancy. 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?

Given the tool has a clear purpose, well-documented parameters with 100% schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, the description provides all necessary context for an agent to decide when and how to use it.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, all three parameters are already well-documented in the schema. The tool description does not add additional meaning to the parameters, so it meets the baseline expectation.

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's purpose: to check TouchDesigner reachability, display/projector topology, and status DAT health for physical installations. It distinguishes itself from other diagnostic tools by specifying it is a room/hardware preflight and that it returns PASS/WARNING/FAIL/UNVERIFIED checks without mutation.

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 frames the tool as a 'room/hardware preflight for physical installations,' which provides clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it to alternatives like inspect_gpu_and_displays, though the purpose is distinct enough.

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