Check All Targets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds meaningful behavioral details: a bounded concurrency limit, result order preservation (MCP→GitHub→GitLab→HTTP), and that tags filter across all target kinds. This goes beyond the safety annotations and enriches the agent's understanding of execution behavior.

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?

Two sentences, heavily packed with relevant details: scope, concurrency, ordering, and tag filtering. No redundancy or filler—every word earns its place.

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?

The description covers the main aspects needed to invoke the tool: what it checks, ordering, concurrency, and tag filtering. It lacks an explicit statement about return format, but no output schema is present, and the description's mention of 'Results preserve... order' gives a hint. Given the simple parameter set and rich sibling context, it is nearly complete.

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 50% (only tags has a description). The tool description adds value by clarifying that tags filter all target kinds, going beyond the schema's 'Filter targets by registered server tags'. For timeout_ms, the schema provides default/min/max, so no additional semantics are needed. The description partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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 the action ('Check all registered MCP servers, GitHub Actions workflows, GitLab pipelines, and HTTP targets') with a specific verb and resource scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools by covering 'all' target kinds at once, as opposed to individual check tools.

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 description implies use for bulk checking across all target types and notes a bounded concurrency limit as a key advantage. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use, but the 'all' scope and context from sibling names provide clear usage context without exclusions.

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