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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, but the description adds important behavioral context: it is static and local, nothing is fetched, run, or stored, no auth is needed, and results are limited to the files supplied. It further clarifies what 'no-findings' and 'unknown' mean, which prevents overtrusting the verdict.

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 front-loaded with when to use it and what it checks, then moves to input constraints and return semantics. It is long, and the Binance theft anecdote plus the long pattern list are more verbose than strictly necessary, but most sentences carry operational or safety-relevant information.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description fully explains the return contract: verdict values, findings shape, coverage, and note. It also covers input limits, relevant files to send, the whole-directory alternative, and the key limitation that 'no-findings' does not mean safe.

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 schema already defines the single files map. The description still adds useful semantic detail by explaining the expected shape, giving representative paths, and stating the 40-file / 28,000-character limit. The only minor ambiguity is that the schema’s maxLength is per file value while the prose says '28000 characters in total.'

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 specific verb and resource (check a repository) and enumerates exactly what it inspects: install hooks, VS Code tasks, agent hooks, MCP servers, devcontainer commands, npm registry settings, URL/git dependencies, and setup.py execution. It also distinguishes the tool from a dependency check by saying it looks where 'a dependency check never reads.'

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?

It gives explicit usage conditions: before opening or running a repository someone else sent you, including recruiter coding tests, downloaded zips, and proofs of concept. It also names the alternative for a whole directory: use the command line scanner or the DugganUSA Checks GitHub Action.

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