preflight_vehicle

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and largely meets it: it names the check outputs (configuration_checks, gearbox_configuration_checks, wheel_direction_checks), warns about reverse-off warnings and blocked transmission exits, and sets expectations with 'Unknown logic stays unknown.' It does not discuss permissions, cost, or mutation risk, but for an inspection tool that omission is minor.

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 scope is front-loaded in the first sentence and the remaining sentences each add a distinct behavioral fact rather than padding. It is dense and runs long, and some return-content detail risks overlapping with the available output schema, but nothing is pure 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?

For a single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is substantively complete on behavior — it explains the check categories and the unknown/blocked-edge semantics. The gaps are the undocumented parameter and the absence of routing guidance against near-duplicate siblings.

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?

There is one required parameter ('design') with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it at all — it does not say whether this is a design ID, name, or handle, nor its format. The schema does none of the work here, so the description should have compensated and doesn't.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Check engine fuel/air/exhaust/radiator paths, driveline, electrical power and controls'), which is far more concrete than the bare name. However, it never distinguishes itself from very close siblings such as preview_vehicle_diagnostics, preview_vehicle, analyze_vehicle, or prepare_vehicle_validation, so an agent cannot route between them from this text alone.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no sibling is named as an alternative. The only contextual cue is 'Connected geometry still needs in-game testing,' which is a limitation caveat, not a usage rule.

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