apex_check_requirements

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

Annotations already convey read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by specifying exactly what is checked (connection, workspace, grants), which is useful context beyond the annotations. It does not describe error behavior or return structure, but output schema covers the return.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It clearly front-loads the verb and lists the key components, achieving maximum information density.

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?

For a zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description adequately captures the core purpose. It does not explain use cases or prerequisites, but those are not necessary for such a simple verification tool. The description is sufficient for an agent to understand what it does.

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, so the baseline is 4. The description meaningfully elaborates on what the tool verifies, which is the only semantically important aspect. No additional parameter details are needed.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Verify') and three distinct resources (Oracle connection, APEX workspace, grants). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like apex_connect (connection only) and apex_check_permissions (grants only) by combining them into a single requirements 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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is given. The context implies a pre-flight check before configuration or other operations, but this is not stated. Siblings like apex_health_check and apex_setup_guide are not mentioned as alternatives.

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