check_preflight

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavior. It states the tool 'checks' but does not describe whether it returns a boolean, throws errors, or has side effects. The nature of checking a protection status implies a read-only operation, but the lack of output format or error conditions reduces transparency.

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 very concise at one sentence. It conveys the core purpose without extra words. However, it may be slightly underspecified, but for a simple tool, this level of conciseness is acceptable.

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 absence of an output schema and annotations, the description should explain what the tool returns or how to interpret results. It does not. The tool is simple, but completeness is lacking for a fully usable definition.

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?

The input schema has one parameter (file_path) with a description in the schema. Since schema coverage is 100%, baseline is 3. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the score remains at baseline.

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 checks if a file is protected (UNTOCUHABLE). The verb 'check' and resource 'file' are specific, and it distinguishes from siblings like audit_mcp_config or emergency_kill_switch, which have different purposes. However, the term 'UNTOCUHABLE' is slightly informal and could be clarified.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not specify context, prerequisites, or when not to use it. For a simple check, implicit usage might be assumed, but explicit guidelines are missing.

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