solution_check

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

It discloses the cloud upload, the fact that nothing changes in the environment, the wait/duration, and where output is written. This is valuable context beyond the raw annotations (readOnly=false, destructive=false) and aligns with them.

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 dense sentences front-load the operation and resource, then add only high-value operational details: cloud call, no environment change, duration, and output path. There is no filler or repetition of schema fields.

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?

The operational lifecycle is well explained for a moderately simple tool, but with no output schema and 0% schema parameter coverage, geo and environment remain unclear. An agent can probably call it with just zip_path, but would be guessing about optional parameters and the exact return shape.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description only implicitly maps 'solution zip' to zip_path. geo and environment are left undefined, and there is no mention of defaults or whether they affect the checker service endpoint, so the description does not compensate for the sparse schema.

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 names a specific verb ('Run'), the exact resource ('solution zip'), the underlying command ('pac solution check'), and the outcome ('summarizes SARIF results by rule and severity'). This is enough to separate it from siblings like app_checker_results, which is about viewing results rather than running a check.

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 clearly implies the tool is for checking a solution zip and explicitly warns that it takes several minutes, which an agent should consider before invoking. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a perfect score.

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