magg_check

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states health check and handling unresponsive servers but does not explicitly warn about potential destructive side effects of 'remount', 'unmount', or 'disable' actions. The lack of caution about state changes or permissions needed 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 sentence, very concise with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action (check health) and scope (all mounted servers). While it could benefit from additional context, the conciseness itself is a strength.

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?

The description is incomplete for a tool with output schema and potential side effects. It does not mention return value, behavior of each action, or impact on server state. The AI lacks crucial context to decide whether to use this tool or how to interpret results.

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%, so the schema already explains both parameters. The description adds no further meaning beyond the schema. It does, however, implicitly reinforce the action parameter's role by mentioning 'handling' unresponsive servers. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema carries the load.

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 health of all mounted servers and handles unresponsive ones. It uses specific language ('check health', 'handle unresponsive servers') and the resource scope is explicit. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like magg_status or magg_list_servers, missing a chance to clarify its unique role.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives or when to choose each action (report, remount, unmount, disable). There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the AI to infer usage from schema alone.

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