Run a read-only preflight to verify environment, dependencies, debug probe, target, and configuration, identifying missing or misconfigured components before starting a debugging session.
Run a read-only environment, dependency, probe, target, and config preflight.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description explicitly states 'read-only', which is a valuable behavioral disclosure given that no annotations are provided. It also lists the areas covered (environment, dependency, probe, target, config). However, it does not describe what the tool returns, whether it requires an active connection, or what constitutes a 'pass/fail', leaving some behavioral ambiguity.
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 entire description is a single, compact sentence that front-loads the verb and read-only nature. It wastes no words, though the list of five target areas could be seen as slightly dense. Still, it is appropriately concise for a simple no-argument tool.
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 tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description gives a reasonable sense of scope. However, it fails to describe what the preflight output is (report? exit codes? logs?) or when the user should interpret results. For a diagnostic tool, that missing context makes it only partially complete.
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 has zero parameters, so there is nothing to explain beyond the schema. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on the tool's scope rather than parameter details. No credit is lost here.
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 uses the specific verb 'Run' and clearly identifies a preflight operation covering environment, dependency, probe, target, and config aspects. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'probe_connect' or 'get_target_info' by focusing on a holistic read-only diagnostic. However, 'preflight' is not defined in detail, so it stops short of a 5.
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 a pre-flight check that should be run before other actions (like build/flash), but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool or how it relates to alternatives such as 'pack_diagnose' or 'collect_crash_evidence'. There are no stated exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.