Check Local Whatbox Configuration

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive nature. The description adds valuable context beyond these by stating it does not return configuration values or secrets, which is a behavioral guarantee not captured in the annotations. This enriches the safety profile.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that conveys the tool's purpose and key behavioral constraint without superfluous words. Every word 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 tool's simple nature (zero params), the existence of an output schema (which would document return values), and the rich annotations, the description provides sufficient context. It covers the essential safety behavior (not returning secrets) and leaves return details to the output schema.

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 an empty schema, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific information, but none is needed since there are no parameters to document.

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 the completeness of local Whatbox configuration with the specific verb 'Check' and identifies the resource. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from tools like whatbox_configuration_review by noting it does not return configuration values or secrets, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 usage context is implied: it is a safe check that avoids exposing secrets, but there is no explicit guidance about when to use it versus alternatives like whatbox_configuration_review. It does not state exclusions or recommend this tool over siblings, leaving the when-to-use somewhat implicit.

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