Online code mode readiness

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false; the description far exceeds them by enumerating the ordered prerequisites checked and specifying the return contract (READY, or the FIRST failure with an exact fix). It also discloses sensitive handling behavior — macOS key presence checked without reading it, Linux secret-tool output discarded by agiw-mcp — which an agent could not infer elsewhere.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause and every subsequent clause carries distinct information — the ready/fail contract, the ordered list, and the platform-specific key handling. The prerequisite sequence and the parenthetical platform detail would read better as a list than as one long run-on sentence.

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, the description carries the full burden and does so: it defines the return states, the deterministic ordering of failures, and what each check inspects. An agent can decide whether to call it and interpret the result without additional documentation.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing extra for the description to document; baseline applies. The description correctly spends its words on the check sequence and return values instead of restating an empty schema.

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?

Names a specific verb (check) and resource (online code mode readiness) and immediately scopes it: "Only checks, never starts work." That single exclusion separates it from mutation-oriented siblings such as agiw_nisi_run or agiw_nev_post without needing to open their schemas.

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 'initiate online code mode' check" plus "never starts work" makes the pre-flight use case clear and rules out using it as a launcher. However, it never names an alternative tool (agiw_status, agiw_nisi_run) or states explicitly when to skip this call, so the routing is implied rather than spelled out.

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