check_seb_extension_status

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

The verb 'checks' conveys a read-only, non-destructive operation, and the description adds context about the extension's importance. It does not detail permissions or exact return behavior, but an output schema is present, and the operation inherently has no side effects, so the description adequately covers behavioral transparency given the absence of annotations.

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 concise sentences that state the purpose first and then provide actionable context. 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?

Given the low complexity, full schema coverage, presence of an output schema, and clear usage guidance, the description is complete. It explains the tool's role in the broader workflow and links to the remediation tool, making it sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 100% (both orgUnitId and customerId have descriptions), so the baseline of 3 applies. The description mentions 'given Organizational Unit' but adds no parameter-level details beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

Clearly states the specific action (checks force-installation of SEB extension) and the target resource (given Organizational Unit). The mention of 'force-installed' and integration with sibling tools distinguishes it from similar checks like check_ev_extension_status.

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?

Explicitly instructs when to use this tool as a prerequisite check and provides a direct alternative next step: 'use install_seb_extension to fix it.' It also explains why the extension matters (required for advanced features), giving context for the check.

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