Check Sailfish OS helper compatibility, local tools, SDK targets, and configuration without contacting devices to diagnose setup issues before development workflows.
Check helper compatibility, local tools, SDK targets and configuration without contacting devices.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world behavior. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral constraint not in the annotations: it does not contact devices, which tells the agent the check is safe and side-effect-free on hardware. It does not describe output shape, but the safety profile is otherwise covered.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. The key constraint ('without contacting devices') is placed at the end of the clause but the enumeration is compact and informative.
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 diagnostic with rich annotations and no output schema, the description adequately conveys scope. It could note what the check reports (pass/fail, missing helpers) but nothing required for correct invocation is absent.
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 and the schema is empty with 100% coverage, so there is no parameter semantics burden. Baseline 4 applies since nothing is missing or contradictory.
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) plus an enumerated set of resources (helper compatibility, local tools, SDK targets, configuration). This clearly separates it from the device-facing siblings. It stops short of naming a sibling alternative, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.
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 phrase 'without contacting devices' implies the context of use (local/offline diagnostics as opposed to the many sailfish_device_* tools), but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement. Usage is inferable rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.