startup_verification

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does reasonably well: it discloses scope (host/container of the MCP, not RunPod), the failure semantics ('a false ready includes missing checks and the available diagnostic details'), and the separation between verification and service state. It omits whether the run is read-only, how long it takes, or what a passing result contains.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action followed by the profile enumeration and two behavioral caveats. The profile list is long but genuinely informative and cannot be trimmed without losing parameter meaning.

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 two-optional-parameter diagnostic tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers scope, failure output, and parameter effects adequately. Minor gaps remain around runtime cost, whether the operation mutates anything, and what a true/'ready' result contains.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it enumerates the eight valid profile values (local, base, z-image, minimax-h3-reference, minimax-h3-full, ltx-cuda, previs, full) and explains require_service's effect on whether service state is checked. It still does not explain what distinguishes each profile or what 'local' means as the default.

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 target: 'Run the configured verifier on the host/container running this MCP.' The explicit 'It does not connect to RunPod' carves out a boundary against the sibling verify_runpod_target, though the vague term 'configured verifier' and the undefined 'ready' concept keep it short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: the RunPod disclaimer hints that verify_runpod_target covers remote targets, and 'service state is separate unless require_service is true' hints at when to flip that flag. There is no explicit 'use this before X' or 'do not use this to Y' guidance, so the agent must infer the routing.

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