check_prerequisites

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly discloses a read-only action ('Check') and lists all the checks performed, including network endpoints and ports. However, it does not state the return format or whether the check may require authentication (e.g., Docker credentials), leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 and front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by a detailed enumeration of checks and a clear usage directive. Every sentence earns its place; the first sentence is dense but informative, the second provides critical workflow guidance.

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 (0 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides the essential context: what is checked and when to run it. It does not describe the output or success criteria, which the agent would need to interpret results, so it is not fully complete.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing to explain. The schema coverage is 100% because the schema is empty. The description adds no parameter information since none exist, which is appropriate; the baseline for 0 params is 4.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('system prerequisites for XNS Relayer installation'), and enumerates specific checks (Docker, ports, existing installation, disk space, network connectivity). This distinguishes it from sibling tools, as it is the prerequisite check before any other relayer operation.

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 says 'Run this first before any other relayer tool,' providing a direct and unambiguous usage directive. This tells the agent exactly when to use this tool in the workflow, though it doesn't need to list alternatives because this is the entry point tool.

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