start_checks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is unavailable due to missing signal-mcp configuration and that calling it will provide an explanation. This is useful, but it doesn't explicitly state what happens when called (e.g., error message, log). It adds some transparency but lacks rich behavioral detail.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the key fact 'Unavailable' and wastes no words. It immediately communicates unavailability and points to the diagnostic action.

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's name and siblings, an agent would expect a tool that starts checks. The description only explains unavailability but does not describe the intended function, return behavior, or relationship to other check tools. This is insufficient for understanding normal operation.

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, so the description need not add parameter semantics. The empty schema already provides complete coverage, and the baseline for 0 params is 4.

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 unavailable and that calling it will reveal why, which is a specific meta-purpose. However, it does not describe what the tool would normally do (e.g., starting checks) nor differentiate it from sibling tools like start_check or run_checks. The purpose is vague regarding the tool's intended functionality.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention using start_check or run_checks instead, nor does it state any exclusions. The only hint is that it is unavailable, which implies it should not be relied on, but this is not explicit.

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