Check Omarchy MCP readiness

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states what it diagnoses but does not disclose whether the tool makes any changes, returns a report, or has side effects. The read-only nature of a health check is implied but not explicit. It also mentions 'the destructive-tool gate' ambiguously. There is no contradiction with annotations (none exist), but the description leaves room for behavioral uncertainty.

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 description is two concise sentences. The first lists the diagnostic scope without fluff, and the second provides a clear usage instruction. All sentences are front-loaded and earn their place.

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 diagnostic tool with a single optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the purpose and when to use it. It does not specify the output format or what success/failure looks like, but that is not essential for a health check. It could mention that it is non-destructive, but overall it is fairly 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 input schema fully describes the only parameter 'live' with its own description. The tool description adds no additional meaning to the parameter. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not need to reiterate parameter details.

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 'Diagnose' and enumerates the exact resources it checks: local dependencies, Omarchy/Hyprland runtime access, custom grid-layout installation, and the destructive-tool gate. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinguishes it from the many sibling tools that perform specific actions (e.g., theme_set, window_focus).

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 tells the agent when to use it: 'Use this first when tools are failing.' This is a clear, actionable trigger condition. While it doesn't mention alternatives, the instruction to use it first implies it's the initial diagnostic step, which is sufficient guidance for a health check.

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