Check launch basics

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Check' clearly implies a read-only, non-mutating operation, and the description discloses what is inspected. However, it does not describe the return behavior, such as whether it reports a pass/fail list or throws on mixed content, which would add transparency.

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 front-loaded sentence that immediately states the purpose and uses a compact list of concrete examples. Every phrase earns its place, and the examples make the scope vivid without padding.

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 only one fully documented parameter and no output schema, the description is largely complete for selecting and invoking the tool. It clearly defines what the tool checks, though it stops short of describing the result format, which is a minor gap in the absence of an output schema.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents the url parameter, including acceptable values like a live URL, preview deployment, or localhost. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline of 3.

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 specific verb ('Check') and a clearly scoped resource ('the things that get forgotten at launch'), then enumerates concrete examples such as the Vite favicon, missing meta description, and robots.txt. This itemized scope distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_security_headers or check_routes without needing to name them.

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 phrase 'at launch' gives clear contextual timing for when this tool is relevant, and the list of checks implies this is the go-to tool for common launch oversights. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the context is strong enough to route an agent correctly.

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