check_rotation_availability

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 cooldown and circuit breaker status, but does not describe the return value (e.g., boolean, object with details), side effects, or required permissions. For a simple read-only check, the description is adequate but not thorough.

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, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and includes specific details (cooldown, circuit breaker status) in parentheses.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema, but the description does not mention what the output looks like (e.g., returns a boolean or a status object). This omission leaves the agent guessing about the return format, which is a gap for a check-style tool.

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 single parameter `portId` is described in the schema as 'The port ID to check', and the description does not add additional meaning beyond that. With 100% schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Check') and the resource ('port rotation availability'), and specifies what is checked ('cooldown, circuit breaker status'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like `rotate_port` (which performs the rotation) and `get_rotation_history` (which shows past rotations).

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 (check before rotating) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide conditions for when not to use it. No direct guidance on prerequisites or follow-up actions.

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