checkup

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is already structured. The description adds real value on top: it discloses that clean=true also wipes application caches and explicitly reassures 'sans perte de données', which is exactly the side-effect context an agent needs before setting the flag. It stops short of 5 because it never says what the checkup returns.

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, front-loaded with the scope enumeration and closing with the one conditional behavior that matters. No filler. The enumeration is a laundry list but each item is a distinct inspection target, so it earns its space.

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 diagnostic tool with no output schema and no return-value description, the agent learns the scope and the clean side effect but not the shape of the report it will get back, nor cost/duration. Annotations cover the safety profile, so the remaining gap is the output contract. Adequate but incomplete.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden for the single 'clean' boolean. It does so well, explaining that clean=true additionally clears app caches and that no user data is lost, which is meaning the bare schema cannot convey. A 4 rather than 5 because it does not state the default (false) or what other side effects, if any, accompany the flag.

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 names a specific verb-resource (a phone 'bilan'/checkup) and enumerates the exact subsystems inspected: system, security patch, battery, storage, memory, sideloaded apps, wireless debugging, accessibility. That is far more specific than the bare name 'checkup'. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like 'info', 'settings', or 'phone', so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to run a checkup versus 'info' or 'settings', nor any prerequisite or exclusion. The only usage-adjacent cue is the conditional behavior of clean=true, which is a parameter note rather than routing guidance. The agent must infer the use case entirely.

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