ilias_check_all

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds genuinely new behavior: the run is asynchronous, re-calling while status is 'running' is a wait rather than a second scan, results are deltas against the last committed check, and a commit step follows. The 14-day deadline window and dashboard-news inclusion further characterize the payload beyond anything in the structured fields.

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 delta-return promise leads, then scope defaults, then the polling/commit lifecycle — a front-loaded ordering that matches call order. No sentence is padding; each carries either return semantics, a parameter rule, or a lifecycle step.

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 four-parameter orchestration tool with no output schema, this covers the important ground: what comes back, how to poll, and what to do afterward. It falls just short of complete because `depth` and `wait_seconds` are undefined, and the shape of the status object behind the 'running' answer is only implied.

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%, so the description carries the load: it explains the `section` fallback and gives concrete ref_id syntax for `exclude`. However `depth` (default 1) and `wait_seconds` (default 40) are never mentioned, leaving half the parameters with no semantic anchor anywhere.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Check every course of the current semester in one go') and narrows the output to a delta ('only what changed since the last committed check'), enumerating the categories returned. That scope statement lets an agent distinguish it from the per-course ilias_scan and from the ilias_list_* siblings without opening a schema.

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?

Gives explicit operating instructions: the semester is derived from the newest dashboard section unless `section` is set, `exclude` takes ref_ids in either form, and after the scan the agent must call ilias_commit_scan(check_id). The one gap is that it never names when to prefer ilias_scan or ilias_list_courses over a full-semester sweep, so alternative selection is left to inference.

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