flow_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that only operator-configured named checks are allowed and arbitrary argv is rejected, but says nothing about side effects, permissions, return behavior, or failure modes.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The key restriction is stated immediately alongside the core action.

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 an execution-oriented tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented parameter, the definition is too sparse. It lacks details about execution results, side effects, and how check names are discovered or validated.

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 must compensate. It implies the single 'name' parameter selects a configured check, but gives no allowed values, format, or constraints for that name.

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 and resource: run operator-configured named checks. It distinguishes the tool from arbitrary command execution, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from siblings flow_run or flow_status.

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?

It states a constraint ('never arbitrary argv') but gives no guidance on when to use this tool instead of flow_run or flow_status. The intended usage is only implied by 'named checks'.

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