check_desired_state

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds that output is a list of missing or different items, but says nothing about TOML schema expectations, behavior when the file is absent or malformed, or whether the comparison is local or on-router.

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?

One clause stating the action and one stating the output; no padding, and the comparison target is front-loaded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the parameter meaning is covered. The remaining gap is the workflow context: how it relates to apply_desired_state and diff_config, which matters for a pre-change check tool.

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?

The single parameter has zero schema description coverage, but the description supplies its meaning: a TOML file path pointing to the desired state. It could go further on path resolution (local vs remote) or acceptable formats.

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?

States a specific verb (compare) and resource (router vs desired-state TOML file) and says the result lists missing or different items. That distinguishes it from the sibling diff_config only implicitly, since neither the file format nor the diff-vs-mutation split with apply_desired_state is spelled out.

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 gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and never names apply_desired_state or diff_config as alternatives. An agent must infer that this is the read-only precheck before changing anything.

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