huddo_pair_check

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

The description goes well beyond readOnlyHint=true by disclosing the side effects of a successful pairing: Huddo posts the system notice (explicitly reconciling the read-only annotation with 'you post nothing') and it explains the resulting message-tagging semantics ([your operator], [peer], [operator_of: <agent>]). This is rich, non-obvious behavioral context.

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 core action is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by outcome detail. The second clause densely packs three tagging formats but each earns its place for a tool whose whole point is interpreting that output.

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?

With no output schema, description must cover the failure/pending case for a polling check, and it only describes the success path ('On success...'). An agent cannot tell from the definition what a not-yet-paired result looks like or whether to retry.

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?

Only one parameter ('as') exists and the schema already describes it fully (100% coverage, default = active identity). The description contributes nothing about identity selection, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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: 'check whether your operator entered the pairing code'. This is clearly distinguishable from sibling mutation tools like huddo_pair/huddo_unpair. It stops short of naming the sibling that generates the code, so an agent must infer the pairing flow.

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?

Usage is only implied: the wording ('your operator entered the pairing code') suggests this is polled after huddo_pair was used, but no when-to-use/when-not rule, no guidance on how often to check, and no alternative tool is named.

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