run_checks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses platform prerequisites (Linux/WSL2, Docker, containerlab, root-equivalent rights, not macOS or sandboxed Docker), expected runtime of 60–120 s, and that it neither deploys nor destroys the lab. It also explains how to interpret INCONCLUSIVE and status errors as setup problems rather than signal about the change.

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 front-loaded with the core behavior and then adds necessary operational warnings. It is somewhat long and dense, but nearly every sentence adds actionable context about prerequisites, runtime, interpretation, or alternatives rather than repeating structured fields.

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 complex tool with no annotations, one required parameter, and an output schema, the description covers prerequisites, runtime, side effects, failure interpretation, retry policy, and sibling alternatives. It gives an agent everything needed to decide whether and how to call it, leaving return-value details to the 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for the single `path` parameter, so the description must compensate. It does clarify that `path` points to netdryrun.yml, which is useful, but it does not specify whether the path is a file or directory, absolute or relative, or any format expectations.

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 resource: run the checks in netdryrun.yml at `path` against an already-running lab, explicitly no deploy or destroy. It distinguishes itself from sibling dry_run by saying configs edited after the lab started do not reach it and directing users to dry_run to test a change.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use guidance: before proposing or applying any routing or policy change, because ping is not a test. It names alternatives and edge cases: use dry_run for edited configs, call record_baseline if no checks exist, and do not retry INCONCLUSIVE more than once.

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