run_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the key trait that the tool is unavailable and why, and implies that calling it returns the reason. However, it stops short of explaining the exact return format, whether it raises an error, or any side effects.

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 two short, front-loaded sentences with no wasted words. The state ('Unavailable'), the cause ('signal-mcp is not configured'), and the intended action ('Call it to see why') are all conveyed efficiently.

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 diagnostic stub with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it tells the agent what is wrong, why, and what happens if the tool is called. It could add more detail about the exact response shape, but that is a minor gap for such a simple tool.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema has 100% coverage for those zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning to add. The description does not need to compensate for any missing schema information.

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 that the tool is currently unavailable and that invoking it will reveal why. It goes beyond a simple restatement of the name, though it does not describe a normal 'run check' operation or differentiate itself from sibling tools.

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 gives explicit context: the tool is unavailable because signal-mcp is not configured, and it tells the agent to call it 'to see why.' This is clear guidance for the diagnostic use case, though it does not mention alternatives or exclusions.

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