check_onboarding_performed

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Checks' implies a read-only, non-mutating operation, and the sequencing context (call after activation, before work) adds behavioral insight. However, it does not explicitly state side effects (none expected) or what happens if onboarding is not performed, leaving some ambiguity. Still, for a simple status check, this is adequate.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by concise usage context. Every sentence adds value, and there is no filler. The structure is efficient and easy to parse.

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, simple status check tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It explains what it does and when to use it, and the output schema covers return values. No additional context is needed.

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 0 parameters, the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description does not need to add parameter information since none exist. It correctly omits parameter details, and the schema coverage is 100% (vacuously).

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 checks whether project onboarding was performed, using a specific verb ('Checks') and resource ('project onboarding'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'onboarding' which likely performs the onboarding, and the mention of sequencing clarifies its role.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: always call before working on the project, after activating a project, and after calling the initial instructions tool. This is clear and actionable, though it does not explicitly name alternatives, the context is strong.

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