Run Config Diagnostics

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

The description does not disclose behavioral traits beyond 'check'. It fails to state whether the tool is read-only, what side effects might occur (e.g., logging, performance impact), or the nature of the output (e.g., report, pass/fail). With no annotations, this is a significant gap.

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, concise sentence that conveys the tool's purpose without excess. However, it could be structured slightly better by front-loading the verb and list. Still, it is appropriately sized.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and no parameters, the description carries full burden. It lacks details on return format, safety (e.g., read-only), and prerequisites. For a diagnostic tool, this is insufficient for an agent to invoke it confidently.

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?

No parameters exist, and schema coverage is 100% trivially. The description adds value by listing the domains checked (profile, policy, TLS, HTTP, production hardening), which is meaningful context beyond the empty schema.

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 tool checks multiple configuration domains (profile, policy, TLS, HTTP, production hardening). It uses a specific verb 'check' and specifies resources, distinguishing it from siblings that focus on single aspects (e.g., ob_list_profiles, ob_policy_explain).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention that this is a comprehensive diagnostic compared to specific checks like ob_ping or ob_list_profiles.

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