unrugable_check_reactor

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 accurately describes a read-only check but omits details such as the return type (e.g., boolean, or throws error if invalid), error handling, or any side effects. For a simple query tool, this is minimally adequate but could be more transparent.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the entire purpose without extraneous words. Every word is necessary, achieving maximum conciseness.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no nested objects, no output schema), the description provides sufficient context for an agent to understand what the tool does. It is complete for its scope, similar to the get_calls example which had no output schema but scored 5.

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?

The schema coverage is 100% with one parameter, and the description ('Reactor address to check') duplicates the schema's description exactly. No additional semantic information is provided beyond what the schema already offers, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 the action ('Check'), the target resource ('address'), and the specific domain ('registered Unrugable reactor (valid target for invite links)'). It distinctly differentiates from sibling tools like unrugable_info (info about a reactor) and unrugable_invite_link (generate invite links).

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 that this tool is for verifying reactor validity before using invite links, which provides context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., if the address is not a reactor, or that this is a read-only check). Given sibling tools exist for other operations, the guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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