aos_compliance_self_test

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

The description implies a read-only operation (self-check) but does not disclose behavioral traits beyond that. With no annotations, it should provide details on side effects, permissions, or error conditions. The description lacks such transparency.

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?

The description is concise (one sentence) and front-loaded. However, it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity, making it under-specified. It earns points for no fluff but loses for incomplete coverage.

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 tool's simplicity (one optional boolean parameter, likely no side effects) and the presence of an output schema, the description still lacks essential context about what the self-test actually checks, what failure modes exist, and how the single parameter affects behavior.

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 description does not mention the only parameter 'mock' or its meaning. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description carries full responsibility but adds no value over the schema. This is a critical gap.

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 'Self-connectivity check for MCP wiring' clearly states the tool's purpose (checking connectivity) and resource (MCP wiring). It is specific but could be improved by distinguishing from the sibling 'aos_compliance_validate'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling tool exists but the description does not mention when to choose one over the other. Additionally, there is no context on prerequisites or context.

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