Preflight check

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description adds real behavioral context beyond them by promising 'Starts no logins', i.e. it inspects auth state without mutating it, which is the key risk an agent would want confirmed. It does not describe what output or failure signal results, but the added value over annotations is genuine.

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 short sentences, with the core action front-loaded and the critical usage instruction ('Run this first') placed at the end for emphasis. No filler or repetition.

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 parameter-light, read-only preflight tool it covers what is checked and when to call it. With no output schema, it could say more about what the result reports (e.g. pass/fail per dependency or remediation guidance), which is a minor gap rather than a blocking one.

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 100% with two enum parameters (target, registry) that are self-documenting, so the baseline is 3. The description never mentions target or registry, adding no meaning beyond the schema, though nothing is left ambiguous.

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 precise verb ('Check') and enumerates the exact resources inspected: git, gh, registry CLI installation, logged-in accounts, and git identity. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it 'Starts no logins' (vs. login) and by its 'Run this first' positioning ahead of install_tool/login. An agent can tell what this does without opening the schema.

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 this first' gives explicit ordering guidance for a workflow of sibling tools, and 'Starts no logins' implicitly routes authentication to the login tool. It does not name an alternative explicitly or state when-not to use it, but the intended call context is clear.

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