yaaif_configure_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 state the specific validation behaviors (platform profile, OIDC discovery, auth session, service reachability), which is useful. However, it does not disclose whether the check is purely read-only, what output it returns, or how failures are surfaced.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that lists the checked components without filler words. Every phrase adds informational value, and the sentence is easily scannable for an agent.

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?

The tool has no parameters and no output schema, but it is a diagnostic-style tool. The description covers the scope of checks but omits what the result looks like, how the agent should interpret success/failure, and whether calling it has any session or side effects. Adequate for zero-param invocation, but incomplete for using the result correctly.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to explain. The baseline of 4 applies here because the description does not need to compensate for undocumented parameters; the schema is complete and empty.

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 ('Validate') and enumerates the exact resources being checked: platform profile, OIDC discovery, auth session, and service reachability. This goes well beyond the name and makes the tool's scope clear, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from similar diagnostics like yaaif_doctor or yaaif_ensure_session.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention common scenarios, prerequisites, exclusions, or related tools such as yaaif_doctor or yaaif_ensure_session, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage from the name and description alone.

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