preflight_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses fail-open behavior (warning vs blocker), which is good. However, it does not mention authentication needs, side effects, or whether the check is purely read-only. More context would improve transparency.

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 brief and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a note on fail-open behavior, then a list of arguments. No unnecessary words; each sentence adds value.

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?

The description covers the basic purpose, behavioral exception handling, and parameter meanings. Given the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description needn't detail return values, but could mention what 'summary' entails. It is adequate but not thorough.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. The Args section provides minimal but adequate descriptions for both `agent_id` and `action_type`, including an example for `action_type`. This adds value beyond the schema's bare titles.

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 clearly states it is a combined agent-status and policy-allowed check that returns a CLEARED/NOT CLEARED summary. This distinguishes it from sibling `check_policy` which likely only checks policy.

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 implies usage before performing an action, noting fail-open behavior. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs `check_policy` or other siblings, nor does it provide when-not-to-use guidance.

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