Diagnose hardware environment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only' and 'without mutating the TD project.' It adds behavioral details about the check types, return statuses (PASS/WARNING/FAIL/UNVERIFIED), and dependency on generated DATs, which goes beyond the annotation values.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with 'Read-only' and then the specific checks. Every phrase adds value: scope, return type, and context. No fluff or 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?

Despite having three optional parameters and an output schema, the description is complete enough for an agent to decide when and how to invoke it. It covers the purpose, safety profile, return statuses, and example DATs. The existence of an output schema means return-value details need not be spelled out.

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?

Input schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description mentions example DAT paths (source_status, bridge_status) and the overall purpose, but does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema fields. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('check') and clearly lists the resources checked (TD reachability, display/projector topology, status DATs), distinguishing it from general info tools like get_td_info or get_td_topology. The phrase 'room/hardware preflight' reinforces its specific purpose.

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 provides a clear usage context: 'a room/hardware preflight for physical installations.' While it does not explicitly name alternative tools, the context is enough to guide an agent on when to select this over a general topology or info tool. No exclusions are stated, but the preflight framing is a strong signal.

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