Show preflight report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's reinforcement is consistent. It adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: the tool returns a categorized status report and covers specific check categories. No contradiction.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and key capabilities. Every phrase earns its place without redundancy or fluff.

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 a read-only annotation, full parameter documentation, an output schema, and a description that covers purpose and usage timing, the tool is well contextualized. The description is complete for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 100% and each of the 5 parameters has its own explanatory description. The tool description does not add parameter-specific details, but the schema fully documents them, so the baseline of 3 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 clearly states the tool is a read-only pre-show check that aggregates multiple system statuses (bridge reachability, node errors, topology, cook-time budget, GPU/display, perform-mode) into a single PASS/UNVERIFIED/WARN/FAIL report. It uses specific verbs and resource scope, and the 'without mutating the project' phrase distinguishes it from mutation-centric siblings.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it: 'before rehearsals or venue handoff.' It also clarifies the purpose of the report (to see what is safe/unverified/suspicious/failing) and that it does not mutate. It does not name alternative tools or explicit when-not-to-use, but the context is clear enough.

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