Check Opus collaborator readiness

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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral trait beyond them: this performs its checks without triggering a model completion, i.e. no token spend or model side effects — key information for deciding to call it first.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the enumerated checklist is dense but each item earns its place by naming a distinct check. Slightly list-heavy, but nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover safety semantics. The description enumerates everything inspected, leaving only minor gaps such as how to interpret partial failures or auth prerequisites — acceptable for a status probe.

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?

One parameter (workspace_path) with 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the burden. It partially compensates by calling the workspace "optional," matching the default of "" and zero required params, but adds no format or expected-value guidance for the path.

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?

States a concrete verb ("Check") over a specific set of readiness facets — Claude Code version, subscription auth, sandbox support, bridge config, workspace — which tells an agent exactly what this diagnostic reports. The trailing clause "without invoking a model completion" implicitly separates it from opus_consult/opus_execute, though no sibling is named.

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 phrase "without invoking a model completion" hints at the natural usage (a cheap preflight before consult/execute), but the description never states when to call this versus the siblings or what a failed check implies. Usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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