check_identity_files

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

Despite no annotations, the description discloses key behavioral facts: it probes a site, runs locally, requires no account, and reports which files exist. This gives an agent a reasonable sense of the tool's operation and side effects, though failure modes and network behavior are not covered.

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 compact sentences with the main action front-loaded and the operational constraints in a single clause. No filler or redundant restating of the tool name.

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 one-parameter probe tool with no output schema and no annotations, this is complete: it states what it checks, what it reports, and the access model. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the existing url parameter description already covers the only parameter. The tool description adds no parameter-specific detail, but none is really needed beyond what the schema provides.

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?

Clearly identifies a specific action (probe a site), a specific resource class (identity files for AI engines), and explicitly names examples. Enough to distinguish from check_ai_access and check_page_signals by the object being checked.

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?

Provides supporting context ('Runs locally, no account needed') but no explicit when-to-use guidance or direction to sibling tools. An agent can infer the intended use from the tool name and description, but exclusion criteria are absent.

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