Dispatch preflight check

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds value by listing the exact checks performed (GitHub repo connected, codebase indexed, Anthropic BYOK key present, autofix enabled) and the return of the repo URL. No contradictions.

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 extremely concise: two sentences with no extraneous words. The deprecation warning is front-loaded, followed by the tool's function. Every sentence earns its place.

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 optional parameter, no output schema), the description covers all necessary context: what it checks, what it returns, its deprecation status, and the recommended alternative. Nothing is missing.

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 is only one optional parameter (projectId) and the schema already provides a description for it (100% coverage). The tool description does not add any additional semantic information about the parameter beyond what the schema offers.

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 that the tool runs 4 specific dispatch-readiness checks and returns pass/fail status plus the target repo URL. It also identifies the tool as deprecated and directs users to an alternative, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 notes the tool is deprecated and should be replaced with 'diagnose_setup with mode=dispatch or diagnose_connection'. This directly informs the agent when to avoid this tool and which alternative to use.

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