run_mechanical_checks

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states what is checked and that URL checks are opt-in, but does not mention side effects, response format, error behavior, or whether the operation is read-only. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity for an action that 'runs' checks.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by the opt-in behavior. No filler exists, though it could add a bit more detail without becoming bloated.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the execution semantics, expected return values, and parameter roles are largely unspecified. The agent knows what is checked but not what a successful or failed call yields, how long it might take, or what slug refers to.

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 must compensate for the lack of parameter documentation. It hints at check_urls via 'URL availability checks are opt-in' but never names the parameter, and it gives no meaning for slug or timeout_ms. An agent cannot infer how to fill the required parameter correctly from this text.

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 uses a specific verb ('Check') and names three concrete resources: revision fingerprint, quotation matches, and procedural-language warnings. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like get_server_health or list_source_audits, which address different concerns.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or conditions for running the checks. The only condition mentioned is that URL availability checks are opt-in, which is about a flag, not tool selection.

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