check_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys that the tool performs checks rather than modifying state, but it does not explicitly state that it is read-only, whether it requires authentication, or what happens if checks fail. This is adequate but not rich.

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 clear sentence that front-loads the action and lists the key checks. There is no redundant wording or unnecessary detail.

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?

For a zero-parameter diagnostic tool, the description is mostly complete: it names the three areas checked. The main gap is that with no output schema, the description does not mention what the tool returns or whether it uses exit codes, but the tool's simplicity makes this a minor omission.

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 the schema already fully describes the input surface. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the baseline score of 4 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?

The description clearly states the specific verb 'Run preflight checks' and the resources involved: connectivity, authentication, and CLI version compatibility. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like view_session_info or view_user_info, which focus on viewing session/user details rather than environment readiness.

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 word 'preflight' implies this should be used before running operations that depend on connectivity, authentication, or CLI compatibility, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. The usage context is implied rather than clearly stated.

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