check_kronos_preflight

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

The description discloses the cost ($0.05 USDC) and the categories of checks performed. With no annotations, this adds useful behavioral context, but it does not state whether the tool is read-only, how results are returned, or what happens if checks fail.

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 one sentence that front-loads the action and lists the check categories, with the cost appended. No redundant phrases.

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?

It covers the what (market state, cooldowns, freshness, warnings) and the why (before creating a decision journal), plus cost. But it lacks details on output format, failure conditions, and how to interpret the results, which is significant given no output schema and no annotations.

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 description does not mention the 'symbol' parameter or how it influences the checks. The input schema provides an enum list, but with zero schema description coverage, the description should compensate but does not, leaving the agent to infer the parameter's role.

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 'Check' and lists concrete resources (market state, cooldowns, freshness, warnings) and places it in the context of before creating a Kronos decision journal. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling getters and create/audit tools.

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 explicitly says 'before creating a Kronos decision journal,' providing clear timing for use. However, it does not mention alternatives or exclusions, such as what to use instead for real-time market data versus preflight checks.

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