check_config

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool reports config status without revealing the API key, which is a notable safety disclosure. However, it does not explicitly declare read-only behavior, potential delays, or what happens if the server is unreachable. The disclosure is adequate but not thorough.

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 consists of two efficient sentences with zero wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the tool's purpose and scope, the second adds usage guidance. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

For a zero-parameter diagnostic tool with no output schema, the description covers what it reports, what it excludes, and when to invoke it. It lacks details on output format, but given the context (image generation siblings), the provided information is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke 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?

There are no parameters (0 params), so per the rubric baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter info, but none is needed. Schema coverage is trivially 100%.

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 tool reports configuration status of the Foundry image server, listing specific elements (environment variables, endpoint, deployment, output directory) and explicitly excludes revealing the API key. It distinguishes from sibling tools (edit_image, generate_image) which are about image manipulation, not config checking.

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 explicitly advises 'Call this first when a generation fails with a configuration error,' providing clear when-to-use guidance. It also states what it does not reveal (API key), which implicitly guides against expecting that output. No explicit when-not or alternatives, but sibling differentiation is sufficient.

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