bw_dtp_check

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the critical fact that the tool is READ-ONLY and does not activate, which is valuable. However, it omits other behavioral details such as return value shape, idempotency, or error conditions, so transparency is only partial.

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 exactly two sentences with no filler. The key safety information (READ-ONLY, does NOT activate) is front-loaded, and the alternative tool is named in a compact clause. Every word earns its place.

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 single-parameter check tool, the description covers the essential purpose and safety profile, and even suggests the next step (activation). However, with no output schema and no mention of what 'consistency' checks return, an agent may not know what to expect from invoking it. This gap prevents a higher score.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for the only parameter 'id' (type string). The description implicitly suggests that the id identifies the DTP to check, but it never explicitly defines the parameter, its format, or its meaning beyond that inference. Given the low schema coverage, more compensation is required.

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 states a specific action ('Check') on a specific resource ('DTP consistency') and explicitly contrasts it with activation via a named sibling. It is not a tautology and clearly differentiates the tool from bw_dtp_activate, though 'consistency' could be more concretely defined.

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 explicitly tells the agent this tool does NOT activate and points to bw_dtp_activate as the alternative for (re)activating. This provides a clear when-not condition. However, it does not describe when to use this over other inspection tools like bw_dtp_details, leaving some usage ambiguity.

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