check_tools

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It appropriately discloses that the tool checks live callability and explains the meaning of each returned status. It does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, but the non-mutating check behavior is strongly implied by the description and status values.

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?

Every sentence earns its place. The core purpose comes first, the status vocabulary follows immediately, and the parameter guidance is compact with an example. No filler or redundancy.

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 simple one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is fully sufficient. It covers what the tool does, what it returns, and how to format the argument. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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?

The schema only says 'tools' is a string with no description coverage. The description fully compensates by explaining that it accepts comma-separated tool names and providing a concrete example. This gives the agent the exact format needed to call the tool successfully.

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 clearly states a specific verb-resource pairing: 'Check if specific tools are callable right now.' It also defines the tool's output statuses (callable, not_loaded, not_found), which differentiates it from sibling tools like search_tools or list_tool_groups.

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: verify whether specific tools are callable before invoking them. However, the description does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives, such as list_tool_groups or load_tool_group, nor does it mention conditions when it should not be used.

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