check_tools

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

With no annotations, the description carries the safety burden and does well: 'This only looks, it will not install anything' discloses the read-only nature and explicitly bounds the outcome. It also reveals the non-obvious behavior that a missing scanner surfaces as a failure rather than a pass. It stops short of describing output format, but an output schema exists to cover that.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, followed by the trigger condition and the read-only guarantee. Every sentence contributes distinct, actionable information with no repetition of the name or schema.

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 a single well-documented optional parameter and an existing output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: what it does, when to call it, and that it is non-mutating. Nothing material is missing for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100% and the single 'path' parameter is fully documented in the schema as a Saga descriptor, defaulting to all known tools when omitted. The description adds no further meaning about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 specific verb and resource ('Report which external scanners Draugr can find on this machine') and adds the secondary output ('what to run if any are missing'). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like scan, list_surveyors, or feeds_status, so an agent can select it without opening the schema.

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?

Gives explicit triggering conditions: 'when a scan fails or before suggesting one,' with the rationale that a control whose scanner is absent reports as failure rather than pass. This is clear when-to-use guidance, though it does not name a specific alternative sibling to use instead in adjacent situations.

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