magg_check

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions 'handle unresponsive ones' which, combined with the action parameter's enum (report, remount, unmount, disable), indicates potentially destructive operations. However, it does not explicitly state side effects, permissions, or rollback behavior.

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 covering both health check and handling, no wasted words. However, it could be better structured (e.g., separating purpose from actions).

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?

Output schema exists but description does not mention what is returned. For a tool with two optional parameters and clear sibling tools, the description is minimally adequate but lacks depth on error handling or result details.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters ('action' and 'timeout'). Description adds no new semantic context beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'Check health' and resource 'all mounted servers', and mentions handling unresponsive ones. It distinguishes from siblings like 'magg_status' (status only) and 'magg_analyze_servers' (analysis) by combining health check with actionable handling, though it could be more explicit.

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 siblings like 'magg_status' or 'magg_analyze_servers'. The description implies use for health checks but lacks exclusions or context for decision-making.

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