st_readiness_check

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

The annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those annotations: it performs a compatibility manifest rather than a full data query, and explicitly disclaims certification of write scopes and metric totals. This helps the agent set correct expectations.

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 tight sentences with no filler: the first defines the core scope, and the second sets boundaries. Every phrase contributes useful information without duplicating the schema or annotations.

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?

Given the single optional parameter, full schema coverage, strong annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. An agent can understand what the tool checks, what it does not do, and how to invoke it safely.

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%, and the single optional boolean 'reports' parameter is already well documented in the schema. The description's mention of report fields/parameters and definition fingerprints loosely aligns with the parameter but adds no significant meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a clear purpose: a read-only compatibility manifest that validates authentication, representative module read access, report fields/parameters, and definition fingerprints. It is reasonably distinct from the surrounding export and lookup tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the closely named sibling st_health_check.

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 intended use is implied by 'read-only compatibility manifest' and by the explicit exclusion that it does not certify write scopes or metric totals. However, the description never states when to choose this tool over st_health_check or st_result_read, leaving the decision to inference.

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