mimry_preflight

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It doesn't state whether this is a read-only operation, what side effects (if any) it has, what permissions are needed, or what the output contains. 'Fast' implies performance but no concrete details are given.

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 a single short sentence, which is front-loaded. However, it is under-specified rather than concise – it wastes the opportunity to provide useful detail and remains vague.

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 three undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It fails to explain the tool's purpose, usage, behavior, or parameters sufficiently for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 0% – none of the three parameters (root, query, force_refresh) are documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning for any parameter. For 'query', it doesn't specify the query format or expected content. 'force_refresh' and 'root' are entirely unexplained.

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 'Fast readiness check and task context generation, matching CLI preflight' restates the name in vague terms. 'Readiness check' and 'task context generation' are abstract without specifying what resource is being checked or how it differs from siblings like mimry_status or mimry_context. A user cannot tell what this tool actually does from the description alone.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as mimry_status or mimry_context. The description doesn't explain prerequisites, exclusions, or typical invocation scenarios.

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