Component link health

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context by specifying what is probed (live COMPs, external .tox paths) and what is reported (missing or broken files). This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action ('Probe live COMPs...'), then a brief usage note. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 simple read-only diagnostic, the purpose and usage are clear, and annotations cover safety. However, the lack of parameter explanations and return format details (no output schema presents additional burden) leaves gaps for an agent to use it correctly without further inference.

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%, and the description provides no meaning for the two parameters (paths, parent_path). The description does not compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving parameter semantics entirely unclear.

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 probes live COMPs for external .tox paths and reports missing or broken linked files. It distinguishes itself from siblings like inspect_component_manifest and make_portable_tox by focusing on link health specifically.

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?

It gives a clear when-to-use context: 'run it when externally-linked .tox components may have moved or gone stale, before relying on them in a build.' It does not name explicit alternatives, but the context is sufficient to guide selection.

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