Triage

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe, read-only operation. The description adds value by specifying what is returned (kernel status, holds, lane) and the context (preflight check), complementing the annotations without contradiction.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential purpose and output. It is concise without being overly terse, though it could benefit from additional structure (e.g., listing returned values).

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 annotations and output schema (present but not shown), the description provides sufficient context for a read-only check tool. It covers the action, return values, and usage timing, though it lacks details about parameter interplay or edge cases.

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 83%, high, so the schema already documents parameters well. The description does not add new meaning beyond the schema, earning a baseline score of 3. The one enum parameter (mode) is clearly defined in the schema.

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 clearly states the tool performs a 'Constitutional preflight check' and returns kernel status, current holds, and the correct lane for a proposed action. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like arif_kernel_status which likely only returns status, making the purpose specific and differentiated.

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?

The description mentions 'before execution' as usage context, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings like arif_kernel_health or arif_kernel_status. It lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives, providing only implied guidance.

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