status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description still adds real value by disclosing the specific finding categories the tool reports, which goes beyond the annotation set; only the 'Read-only' clause is redundant.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the resource and then the findings, with the safety note trailing. The long enumerated clause is slightly run-on but each item carries information.

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?

With no parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description's enumeration of reported items is nearly sufficient for an agent to call it correctly. The missing piece is explicit guidance on how this relates to the take_fix sibling when problems are found.

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 takes zero parameters, so per the baseline the description has nothing parameter-level to compensate for. No misleading parameter claims are made.

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?

States a specific verb (Check) and resource (this machine's Waypoint install), then enumerates the diagnostic surface: logbook discovery, project counts, AI tool rule/MCP registration, and detected problems. This is clearly distinct from the fix/chart/watch siblings, though it never names 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?

Usage is implied by the diagnostic framing and the mention of 'problems with the command that fixes each,' which gestures at a fix counterpart, but it never says when to call this versus take_fix or log_watch, nor any prerequisites. Adequate but with a clear routing gap.

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