Check or Set Up Device Prerequisites

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

Adds context the annotations don't: the default invocation is read-only even though readOnlyHint is false, and installation only happens with an explicit flag, from existing repositories, in a detached job. That conditional behavior is exactly the kind of disclosure annotations cannot express. It omits what the detached job produces or how failure surfaces.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the default behavior, then the opt-in install behavior, then the limitation. No filler. Slightly dense and the pointer to 'sailfish_build_status/cancel' is ambiguous given the device-scoped siblings.

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 5-parameter tool at 40% schema coverage with no output schema, the description leaves real gaps: what 'features' selects, what a detached job returns, and how to distinguish a check failure from an unavailable command. It covers the safety-relevant install path well but not the full surface.

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 coverage is only 40%, so the description must compensate, and it does partly: install_missing's effect (installs python3-base or mce-tools from existing repos) is explained, and the detached-vs-wait distinction is implied. However, 'features' and 'timeout' are never addressed in the description, and features is a meaningful selector for the prerequisite check.

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+resource: 'Check command availability and session configuration over SSH.' The default read vs. explicit install split is clear. It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with the closest sibling (sailfish_doctor), so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Gives clear operating conditions: default is read-only, install_missing=true installs packages, missing base OS tools must be repaired manually. It even routes job tracking to build/command status and cancel tools. It stops short of stating when to pick this over sailfish_doctor or sailfish_device_install_rpm.

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