Vibecheck Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a caveat that 'database state does not verify phone display,' but this is cryptic and unexplained, so its behavioral value is limited rather than contradictory.

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?

Three compact sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded. However, the closing sentence about the phone display is opaque and reads as noise rather than an actionable constraint, weakening the otherwise efficient structure.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. Still, domain terms (SomaCheck, proposition capacity, routine replenishment, first contact) are used without grounding, and the relationship to sibling read tools is left unclear, so an agent has residual questions before calling it.

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 rubric this is a baseline 4. There is nothing for the description to clarify beyond what the empty schema already shows.

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 (read) and resource (the SomaCheck database feed), and enumerates the reported outputs: proposition capacity, replenishment timing, and first-contact status. It does not, however, distinguish itself from closely named siblings like get_vibecheck_context or get_vibecheck_result, leaving some ambiguity about which read tool to pick.

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?

'Read ... before posting' implies a sequencing relationship with post_vibecheck_statement, which is real usage guidance. But it never names an alternative tool or states when NOT to use this one versus get_vibecheck_context, so the routing remains implicit.

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