check_tools

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool checks status and returns one of three values, and it explains the input format. It does not mention side effects (likely none), but rate limits or auth requirements are not addressed. Given the tool's read-only nature, this is sufficient.

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: two short paragraphs, first explaining purpose and return, second explaining the argument. No unnecessary words or repetition. It is well-front-loaded.

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 that an output schema exists (as per context signals), the description does not need to detail return values. It covers input format and behavior fully. The tool is simple, and the description is complete for its complexity.

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%, meaning the input schema provides no descriptions for the 'tools' parameter. The description adds value by explaining that it expects a comma-separated list of tool names and provides an example, which is essential for correct usage.

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's function: 'Check if specific tools are callable right now.' It lists possible return statuses (callable, not_loaded, not_found), which is specific and informative. It distinguishes from siblings like search_tools by focusing on availability check rather than searching.

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 implies usage: before calling a tool, to verify its callability. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the purpose is straightforward and the sibling tools provide context. The lack of explicit when-not guidance prevents a 5.

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