get-check

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It states the operation is read-only ('Get details') and optionally includes metrics, but does not describe response format, error handling, or the effect of the metrics parameter. The behavior is safe and simple, but lacks depth.

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 a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and resource. There is no wasted wording, and it clearly communicates the optional metrics flag.

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 tool is simple with only two parameters and no output schema, but the description does not specify what 'details' includes or clarify how the metrics parameter affects the response. It is adequate for basic understanding but could benefit from a note on return value structure or distinction from get-check-metrics.

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%, with both 'token' and 'metrics' described in the input schema. The description adds little beyond the schema, reinforcing the optional metrics behavior but not providing additional semantic detail.

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 ('Get details') and identifies the resource ('a single monitoring check'), clearly distinguishing from list-checks. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling get-check-metrics or get-check-downtimes, though the 'optionally including metrics' clause partially addresses that.

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 word 'single' implies this is for one check as opposed to list-checks, but no explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided. It does not mention alternatives like get-check-metrics for focused metric retrieval, so usage context is only implied.

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