list_checks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It reveals only that the tool is unavailable and provides no insight into what it would do, what side effects it might have, or what output it produces.

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 text is extremely short but fails to be concise in a useful way; it is under-specified. Conciseness should preserve essential information, but here the essential information (what the tool does) is entirely absent.

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?

For a zero-parameter tool, a description should at least name the resource or action it performs. This description only explains that the tool is not configured, leaving the agent completely in the dark about its intended function. It is not complete even for a diagnostic context.

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 has zero properties, so there are no parameters to document. While a baseline of 4 might apply for zero-param tools, this description adds no semantic value at all—it merely repeats unavailability. The agent gets no understanding of what the tool would require or return.

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 does not state what the tool does; it only declares unavailability. This is an error message, not a definition of purpose. An agent cannot infer the tool's function from "Unavailable: signal-mcp is not configured for this project."

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool or how it relates to siblings. The instruction "Call it to see why" is not a usage guideline but a diagnostic suggestion, and it does not clarify when this tool would be the correct choice.

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