설치 상태 점검

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: it verifies JADE connectivity but explicitly does NOT log in to JADE, which prevents an agent from assuming authentication side effects, and it discloses that it inspects host-level prerequisites (Node patching, system CA store, Keychain). What it omits is the shape of the result — pass/fail per check plus remediation guidance is assumed but never stated.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with what is checked, followed by the non-behavioral constraint (no login) and then the calling triggers. The em-dash enumeration of checks is dense but every item carries diagnostic meaning; nothing is padding.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining what the agent gets back. It says what is inspected but not what a result contains (per-check status, error text, recommended fixes) or whether failures are reported as tool errors versus a report. For a diagnostic tool that is a real gap, though the scope of checks is otherwise fully specified.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so per the baseline there is no parameter meaning for the description to supply. The description correctly implies a parameterless, no-argument invocation by framing the tool as a self-contained environment probe.

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 names a concrete verb ('점검한다' / diagnose) and a concrete target (whether a machine is a viable environment for jade-mcp), then enumerates the exact checks: macOS, patched Node, corporate CA certificates, Keychain tooling, JADE reachability, and account configuration. That is far more specific than the bare title. It stops short of a 5 because it never distinguishes itself from the sibling jade_onboarding, which plausibly also covers setup concerns.

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?

It gives a clear trigger: call it when another tool fails with connection or certificate errors, or when the user asks about installation problems. That is actionable context rather than a vague 'use when needed'. It does not state exclusions or explicitly route the agent to jade_onboarding instead, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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