preflight_check

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

Description mentions fail-open behavior (exceptions as warnings, not blockers) and return summary. However, with no annotations, it lacks details on side effects, authentication needs, or error handling beyond the fail-open note.

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?

Three sentences plus bullet-pointed args. First sentence front-loads purpose, second adds behavioral nuance, and args are clearly listed with examples. No wasted words.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema, description does not need to detail return values but already summarizes them. Properly explains both parameters. Could mention that this is a precondition check, but overall sufficient.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, description adds meaning by explaining agent_id as the agent to check and action_type with examples (e.g., 'data:read'). This significantly aids understanding beyond the raw schema.

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?

Description clearly states it is a combined agent-status and policy-allowed check, returning CLEARED or NOT CLEARED. This distinguishes it from sibling check_policy by specifying it includes agent status.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like check_policy or complete_action. Does not mention prerequisites or when not to use.

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