check_system

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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: it lists stable issue codes, marks unconnected_port as a warning, distinguishes error categories for controls, and states that solve/simulate will refuse to run while errors remain. This gives an agent a clear mental model of what the tool returns and how it interacts with downstream operations.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. The issue-code list is dense but relevant, and the solve/simulate refusal behavior is placed last as a natural consequence. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without repetition or filler.

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 single-parameter read-only validation tool with an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains the validation scope, the warning/error semantics, and the relationship to solve/simulate. It does not spell out the exact return format, but that is covered by the output schema, so this is not a significant gap.

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 input schema only lists system_id as a required string with zero description coverage. The description does not add parameter-specific guidance, so the agent must rely on the parameter name. 'system_id' is reasonably self-explanatory in context, but the description does not compensate for the schema's lack of detail, leaving a minor 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 opens with 'Structural pre-flight', which clearly identifies the tool as a validation/checking operation on a system. It goes beyond the tool name by explaining that it produces stable issue codes. It distinguishes itself from retrieval siblings like get_system and list_components by focusing on structural validation, and from solve/simulate by being the pre-flight that blocks them when errors remain.

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 last sentence says that solve and simulate refuse to run while any error remains, implying the correct usage is to run check_system before attempting solve or simulate. This gives a clear contextual trigger without being an explicit 'use this when...' statement. It does not name alternative validation tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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