check

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 does not state whether the check is read-only, whether it can modify the environment, what side effects a deep dependency check might have, or what the result looks like. The word 'Check' implies inspection but no explicit behavior is disclosed.

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 one concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and resource, then attaches the optional scope. Every word earns its place.

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?

This is a simple tool with a single optional parameter and an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. However, it omits usage context and alternative routing, and with no annotations it leaves the agent to infer safety and side-effect behavior.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented 'deep' boolean. The phrase 'optionally its full CLI dependencies' gives a meaningful hint that deep controls whether CLI dependencies are included, but it never explicitly maps the parameter to the behavior.

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 uses a specific verb ('Check') and names concrete resources: MediaCrawler source, runner, and optionally full CLI dependencies. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like 'status' or 'runs', so differentiation relies on the reader inferring that this is a health/verification 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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'status' or 'collect'. The description states what is checked but not the context, prerequisites, or conditions under which an agent should choose it.

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