tf_preflight

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

No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. It implies a non-destructive read-only operation via 'check' and 'verify', but does not explicitly state lack of side effects or return format. Still sufficiently clear for a preflight check.

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 concise sentences: first describes function, second gives usage recommendation. No fluff, front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place.

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 simple single-parameter input and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and usage. It does not describe return values, but for a preflight check this is acceptable. Sibling tools provide clear 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds no additional meaning to the 'workdir' parameter beyond what the schema already provides.

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 which cloud providers are used and verifies authentication status, a specific verb+resource. It differentiates from sibling execution tools like tf_plan and tf_apply by explicitly recommending use before them.

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 advises 'Call this before plan or apply to catch credential issues early', giving clear when-to-use guidance and implicitly distinguishing from execution tools.

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