request_rh_check

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

The description discloses that the operation creates a ticket for the data center duty shift, and that status and correspondence are tracked in the ticket with a link sent to email. This adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), which only indicate a write-side effect. 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?

The description is two concise sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action ('проверить сервер и загрузить его в ОС') and immediately states the consequence (ticket creation). Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient.

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 tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the primary outcome (ticket creation) and how to monitor progress (status and correspondence in the ticket, email link). It doesn't mention prerequisites or asynchronous behavior, but for a low-complexity operation this is adequate.

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?

Both parameters already have clear descriptions in the schema (id = server ID, confirm = must be true to run), giving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so it provides no value beyond the structured schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate for full schema coverage.

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: 'проверить сервер и загрузить его в ОС' (check the server and boot it into OS), and clarifies it creates a Remote Hands ticket. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like request_rh_power_on, request_rh_reboot, and request_rh_pxe_boot, which have different actions. However, it doesn't explicitly define what 'check' entails, leaving some ambiguity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling RH request tools (e.g., request_rh_power_on, request_rh_kvm, create_rhr_request). There is no mention of alternatives, conditions, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage solely from the action described, without explicit routing.

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