preflight

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

readOnlyHint=true is consistent with a check-only tool, and the description confirms it inspects state rather than mutating it. Beyond that it says nothing about what a failed check means (does it abort?), what is returned, or prerequisites—context the annotation does not carry.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the resource list and ending with the ordering directive. No filler or redundancy.

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?

Covers the checklist scope and the sequencing, which is the essential call-time context for a read-only tool with no output schema. It leaves the enum parameters' meaning and the outcome/failure semantics unexplained, which matters for a gating preflight step.

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 description coverage is 0% for two enum parameters. The description gestures at the registry CLI, implying the registry param, but never explains what 'target' (repo/package/both) selects or how registry interacts with it. With low coverage the description needed to compensate and largely does not.

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 concrete resources: tools (git, gh, registry CLI), logins, and git identity. It is distinguishably different from siblings like verify_install or run_checks, though it never explicitly defines the boundary with 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?

'Run first' is an explicit ordering directive that tells the agent when to invoke this relative to the rest of the workflow. It gives no when-not conditions or failure handling, but the primary usage context is stated clearly.

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