readiness_check

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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint and destructiveHint, and the description adds useful behavioral context: 'Never returns secret values' and 'Emits failure_class + next_action on red paths.' This goes beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose any side effects associated with the update_checklist parameter, despite readOnlyHint being false.

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?

Two tightly written sentences: the first names the core scope, and the second adds safety and failure-output behavior. There is no filler, and the main purpose is front-loaded.

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?

The output schema covers return structure, and annotations cover idempotency and destructiveness. Still, the definition omits usage guidance relative to several similar siblings and leaves the update_checklist parameter semantically ambiguous, so the overall context is not fully complete.

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%, and the description does not mention update_checklist at all. The name and default true imply some update behavior, but the meaning of 'checklist' and the effect of setting it to false remain unexplained. With low schema coverage, the description needed to compensate and did not.

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 names specific resources and scopes: 'healthz/readyz/version, auth, bootstrap, chat_request.' This clearly identifies what the tool checks. However, it does not explicitly differentiate readiness_check from siblings like smoke_test_zeus or diagnose_error, so it stops short of full sibling distinction.

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 gives no guidance on when to use readiness_check versus the many sibling tools such as smoke_test_zeus, doctor, or diagnose_error. There are no conditions, exclusions, or alternative recommendations, leaving the agent to guess based on the name alone.

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