Show preflight report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description reinforces this with 'without mutating the project' and adds context on what the report includes and how results are categorized. It does not discuss latency, network calls, or environmental dependencies, but given strong annotation coverage, the added context is valuable enough for a 4.

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 the key qualifier 'Read-only pre-show check'. It lists all major capabilities in a compact enumeration and ends with a direct usage statement. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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?

The description provides a clear purpose, scope, usage timing, and safety guarantee. An output schema exists, so return details are handled elsewhere. It does not mention prerequisites or failure modes of the preflight itself, but for a read-only aggregate tool with strong annotations and complete schema, this is sufficiently complete.

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 100%, so each parameter is already documented with name, type, default, and description. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level detail, but it doesn't need to; the schema carries the full burden. 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 clearly states a specific verb+resource: 'Read-only pre-show check' and enumerates the exact set of checks (bridge reachability, node errors, topology, cook-time budget, GPU/display, perform-mode status). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by presenting itself as a consolidated report generating PASS/UNVERIFIED/WARN/FAIL results.

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 says 'Use before rehearsals or venue handoff', giving clear when-to-use context. It does not name alternative tools or provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance, but the aggregation nature and the 'in one PASS/UNVERIFIED/WARN/FAIL report' phrasing imply it should be preferred for a comprehensive pre-show overview.

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