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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It discloses the core behavior (checking status and port binding) and implies a non-mutating operation, but it omits details like return format, error behavior, or what happens if the container is not found or expectedPort is omitted.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action ('Checks whether') and avoids redundancy. Every phrase contributes to understanding the tool's core purpose.

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?

For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain return values and error handling. It only states what is checked, leaving the agent uncertain about the result format and edge cases like missing containers or optional port usage.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema—it rephrases the expectedPort concept but does not clarify the behavior when expectedPort is not provided or how containerName is resolved.

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 function: checking if a container is running and if the expected port is bound on the host. This specific verb+resource+scope distinguishes it from sibling tools like ping, check_pnpm_workspace, and diagnose_stuck_process.

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 implies usage: use this when you need to verify a container's running state and port binding. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or mention any exclusions, leaving usage guidance to inference.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It lists what is validated (orphaned packages, dead glob patterns, etc.) but does not state whether the tool is read-only, how results are returned, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for an agent that needs to know if invoking the tool could cause changes.

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 sentence that front-loads the core action ('Validates pnpm-workspace.yaml') and then lists specific validation targets. There is no fluff, and every word adds value.

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 is simple with one well-documented parameter, and the description enumerates exactly what issues it detects, covering the main functionality. However, it does not describe the return value or prerequisites, and since there is no output schema, this leaves a gap for the agent regarding how to interpret the result.

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 only parameter, repoPath, has a full schema description ('Absolute path to the monorepo root'). The tool description does not add extra parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb 'Validates' and resource 'pnpm-workspace.yaml', then enumerates four distinct validation checks. This distinguishes it from siblings like check_docker_status and diagnose_stuck_process, which target completely different domains.

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 implies this tool is for validating pnpm workspace configurations, but it does not explicitly state when to use it, nor does it mention alternatives or exclusion criteria. Since the sibling tools are unrelated, the intended context is somewhat clear, but there is no direct when-to-use guidance.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'flags' zombie/hung states but does not clarify whether the tool is read-only or may terminate processes, what permissions are needed, or what the output looks like.

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 concise sentence with no redundancy. It front-loads the action and outcome efficiently.

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 is simple with one parameter, but the lack of annotations and output schema places more burden on the description. It explains the core function but fails to provide usage context, safety profile, or expected results, making it incomplete for an agent deciding whether and how to invoke it.

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 provides 100% coverage for the only parameter, port, described as 'Port number to inspect'. The description adds no extra semantic detail, so it does not improve on the schema but also does not conflict.

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 finds processes bound to a given port and flags zombie/hung states, using a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like check_docker_status, but the primary function is unambiguous.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies a diagnostic scenario but lacks context on prerequisites, appropriate use cases, or exclusions.

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

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 explains what the tool returns (pong + server time) and implies a read-only, non-destructive nature via 'sanity check.' It does not mention errors or side effects, but for a simple ping tool, this is adequate transparency.

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 efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and return value. Every word earns its place, and there is no unnecessary verbosity.

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 trivial complexity (no parameters, no output schema), the description fully covers what the tool does and what it returns. It is complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly without additional context.

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 accepts zero parameters, so the schema is fully covered (100%). With 0 params, the baseline is 4, and the description correctly needs no parameter details. There is nothing missing.

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 function: a sanity check that returns 'pong' and the current server time. This is a specific verb+resource pairing and is easily distinguished from sibling tools like check_docker_status or diagnose_stuck_process.

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 phrase 'Sanity check' implies usage for verifying server connectivity, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not name any exclusions or alternative tools, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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