run_preflight

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

The description meaningfully discloses that the tool does not execute commands, which is a significant behavioral trait beyond the annotations. It also names the specific state categories being checked. It does not fully clarify whether any state is modified despite readOnlyHint=false, but it does not contradict the annotations.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then adds a key differentiator. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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?

With one required parameter, full schema coverage, and an output schema present, the description covers the essential behavior and scope. It is slightly thin on usage context, but the tool's simplicity and structured metadata prevent any critical gap.

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%: the sole parameter, diagnosis_id, is already described as 'Identifier returned by start_diagnosis.' The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so the 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 states a specific action ('Check') and specific resources ('executable, environment-name, and loopback port state'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It also distinguishes itself from command-executing siblings by adding 'without command execution'.

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 this is a preflight verification step before command execution, and the required diagnosis_id ties it to start_diagnosis. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like prepare_probe or execute_probe, nor does it state when not to use it.

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