check_onboarding_performed

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies this is a read-only check (non-destructive) and suggests it's a prerequisite step, which adds useful context. However, it doesn't describe potential outcomes (e.g., returns a boolean, error handling) or performance aspects like rate limits, leaving some behavioral traits unclear.

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 highly concise and well-structured, consisting of two sentences that efficiently convey purpose and usage guidelines. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to parse and front-loaded with essential information.

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 low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is largely complete. It explains what the tool does and when to use it, which is sufficient for a simple check operation. However, it doesn't mention what the output might be (e.g., a boolean result), which could be helpful despite the lack of an output schema.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing instead on usage context. A baseline of 4 is applied since it avoids unnecessary details while being complete for a parameterless tool.

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's purpose: 'Checks whether project onboarding was already performed.' It uses a specific verb ('Checks') and identifies the resource ('project onboarding'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'onboarding' or 'initial_instructions', which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides explicit usage guidelines: 'You should always call this tool before beginning to actually work on the project/after activating a project, but after calling the initial instructions tool.' It specifies when to use it (before work, after activation and initial instructions) and references sibling tools ('initial_instructions'), offering clear context and sequencing without misleading information.

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