svn_self_check

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses what is reported but does not state whether the tool modifies state, requires special permissions, or any other behavioral traits. As a 'check', it likely is read-only, but this is not explicit.

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?

Single sentence that efficiently lists the reported items. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with verb 'Report'. Every part adds value.

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 self-check diagnostic tool with no output schema, the description lists the key items reported. It lacks detail on the return format (e.g., boolean, text, structured data), but given the tool's nature, it is mostly sufficient. Could mention if the tool also returns actionable status.

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 100% (the cwd parameter is well-documented in the schema), so the description does not need to add parameter details. The tool description itself does not elaborate on parameters, which is acceptable given the schema coverage. Baseline 3.

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 reports specific items (MCP release pointer, runtime payload counts, startup probe, packaging script health), giving a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools which are all standard SVN operations, so an agent can see this is a diagnostic/self-check tool.

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 vs alternatives. Since siblings include other check tools like eol_check, but the description doesn't explain the context or when to prefer svn_self_check over them. The agent is left to infer usage from the name and description alone.

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