skypilot_check

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a non-mutating operation, and the description adds the useful default-scope behavior and what infra types are covered. The word 'enable' creates mild tension with readOnlyHint, though the core stated function (verify/check) is consistent with it, so it is not a hard contradiction. It discloses no permission or rate-limit context.

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 that are front-loaded with the primary action ('Check and enable infrastructure credentials') followed by scope defaults and optional scoping. Efficient, with no filler, though the leading phrase slightly duplicates the verification clause.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary. The description covers the key behaviors (default = all infra, optional workspace scoping) for a simple 3-parameter tool; the only gap is that the 'verbose' parameter goes unaddressed.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'infra' (clouds, Kubernetes, SSH, Slurm) and its null default (checks all), and the 'workspace' scoping parameter, but leaves 'verbose' entirely unexplained, so compensation is only partial.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it 'checks and enable[s] infrastructure credentials' and 'verifies that credentials are configured correctly' for clouds, Kubernetes, SSH, and Slurm. This is clear and concrete, but it does not distinguish itself from related siblings such as skypilot_enabled_clouds or skypilot_validate, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

It gives useful default behavior ('If no infra specified, checks all supported infrastructure') and workspace scoping, which is implied usage guidance. However, it never states when to prefer this tool over alternatives like skypilot_enabled_clouds or skypilot_validate, and there are no exclusions.

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