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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'Deterministic; no LLM,' which clarifies execution behavior, and mentions that the report may include skill levels, giving insight into output variety. While it doesn't explicitly say the tool is read-only or describe error behavior, the word 'check' implies a safe inspection, and the provided details add meaningful context beyond the schema.

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 remarkably concise, with each sentence serving a distinct purpose: the main action, the deterministic nature, the potential report content, and the conditional routing to hexum_skill. Information is front-loaded and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 description covers the core purpose and a key conditional, but leaves gaps for a tool with three parameters and no output schema. It does not explain how the input modes (files vs paths vs workspace) differ, nor does it detail the report format or the meaning of skill levels (lite, full, ultra). Given the tool's complexity and lack of structured metadata, the description is only partially 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?

Schema description coverage is only 33% (only workspace has a description), yet the tool description does not explain the roles of files, paths, or workspace beyond what the schema already states. The description says 'check the workspace' but does not clarify how files and paths blobs relate to reading from disk, leaving agents without sufficient guidance on parameter usage. This fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 states a clear and specific action: checking the workspace against architecture.hexum and reporting layer/import drift. It also includes a conditional for skill handling, which further distinguishes it from siblings like hexum_review or hexum_expand. The purpose is unambiguous and actionable.

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 provides a specific conditional instruction to call hexum_skill when skill is on and SKILL.md is missing, which is a useful routing cue. However, it does not offer broader guidance on when to use this tool versus other checking or review tools, nor does it state exclusions or alternative scenarios beyond that one condition.

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