stack_write_check

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains the write-read-cleanup steps, default behavior of retaining the marker, and the audit trail preservation. It does not cover error scenarios or latency, but overall it provides good behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 concise, with three front-loaded sentences that cover purpose, usage, and customization. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy or fluff.

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 the tool's simplicity, lack of output schema, and no annotations, the description is largely complete. It explains the workflow and parameter nuances. It could mention the format of the response or success/failure indication, but it is still fairly self-contained.

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%, and the description adds meaning beyond the schema: 'Recorded in the marker for attribution' for instance_id and 'keeps the audit trail' for cleanup. This enriches the parameter understanding.

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 it is a 'Round-trip smoke test' that writes a marker insight, confirms write capability, and is useful for bringing up new devices or troubleshooting comms. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being a diagnostic health check.

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 explicitly mentions when to use the tool: 'when bringing up a new device, after a restart, or when troubleshooting comms.' While it doesn't specify when not to use it or name alternatives, the context is clear and sufficient for an agent.

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