request_rh_check

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

Annotations already declare openWorldHint=true and non-read-only/non-destructive, and the description adds meaningful behavior on top: this is an asynchronous, human-mediated workflow where status lives in a ticket and the link arrives via email. That is the kind of out-of-band detail an agent needs and cannot get from 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?

Two tight clauses front-load the action, with the internal endpoint reference (jira/request_check) parenthetically tucked away rather than leading. Slightly dense with jargon but no wasted sentences.

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 no output schema, the description usefully explains the return path (ticket holds status, link emailed) so the agent knows not to expect an immediate result payload. Remaining gap is the absence of any permissions or cost/timing expectations for an open-world request.

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 description coverage is 100% for both parameters (id = Server ID, confirm = must be true), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds nothing about parameter format or the meaning of confirm in this ticket-creation flow, so baseline 3 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?

States a concrete action set: check the server and boot it into the OS, framed as a Remote Hands request that creates a datacenter ticket. That is specific enough to separate it from generic reboot/power tools, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling request_rh_reboot / request_rh_pxe_boot / request_rh_power_on variants.

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?

Describes what happens after the call (ticket created, correspondence in ticket, emailed link) but gives no condition for choosing this over the other request_rh_* tools or over direct power/boot operations. The agent must infer usage from the phrase 'check the server and boot it into the OS' alone.

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