Start a session

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does state 'Read-only' plus the exact diagnostic categories it returns, including the trailing 'next steps'. It also bounds the behavior ('reports the state of the machine and nothing else'). It stops short of describing failure/error behavior or whether repeated calls are cheap, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 content is front-loaded and every clause earns its place by naming either an inspected resource or a routing condition. It is written as a dense run-on sentence with three back-to-back imperatives, which costs some readability but not much substance.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description compensates by enumerating the reported state categories and the 'next steps' ending. Combined with the read-only framing, call triggers, exclusions and sibling routing, an agent has everything needed to invoke this correctly and interpret the result.

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 the single optional 'workspace' parameter, and the description never mentions it (no defaults, no resolution order, no interaction with CPS_WORKSPACE). Baseline 3 is the correct ceiling when the schema already documents the only parameter.

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 opens with a specific verb-plus-scope statement ('Check whether this machine is ready to work') and then enumerates exactly what state it inspects: pac CLI/.NET, active auth profile, cloud resources with usable tokens, environment variables, write policy, and the discovered workspace. This is far beyond restating the name and lets an agent distinguish it from status-like siblings such as cs_status or cs_login_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?

It gives explicit triggers ('once at the start of a session', 'again when a tool fails and you need to know whether the CLI, the credentials or the workspace is the reason') and an explicit when-not ('when the user asked for something specific... call the tool for that thing instead'). It even routes to named alternatives, cs_create_agent and cs_guide, leaving essentially nothing to inference.

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