Detsky Mir Selfcheck

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

Beyond readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, the description defines the full tri-state contract (success, drift_detected, inconclusive) including the important caveat that inconclusive says nothing about parser health. This is valuable behavioral disclosure not present in annotations.

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 main verb and scope are front-loaded, and each sentence adds meaning: state definitions, the drift consequence, the inconclusive caveat, and when to run it. No filler or repetition.

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 parameterless self-check tool with a rich output schema and safety annotations, the description fully covers purpose, result interpretation, and timing. It leaves no gap an agent needs to call 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 tool has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so there is no parameter burden for the description to carry. The baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4; no parameter details are needed.

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?

Description opens with 'Probe every Detsky Mir endpoint family and report a tri-state verdict,' a specific verb and resource scope that clearly distinguishes it from data-fetching siblings like detmir_card and detmir_category. The self-check role is unambiguous.

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?

Explicit run-time guidance is given: 'Run it after install and whenever results look wrong.' It does not enumerate alternatives or when-not scenarios, but the no-argument diagnostic nature and marketplace-specific naming make the context clear.

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