mort_check

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It does add real value beyond the name: speed, the no-compiler dependency, and the shape of the result (OK or diagnostics with file:line:column plus the offending line). It says nothing about whether anything is written to disk, size/time limits, or what warn_unused actually 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?

Two sentences, both front-loaded with the fact that matters most (what it is and why it is cheap). No filler, no restatement of the tool name, and the return-format detail is compressed into a single clause.

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?

A small tool with an output schema, so return values need little prose. The gaps are the unexplained warn_unused flag and the undefined behavior when both `source` and `files` are omitted, given that all three parameters are optional and no annotations supply defaults or constraints.

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. It explains `source` as a whole program in text and `files` as .mx paths compiled together as one program, which is genuinely beyond the bare string/array titles. The third parameter, warn_unused, is never mentioned anywhere, leaving it undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: "Type-check Mort code without building it." The parentheticals ("fast; needs no C compiler") distinguish it from a build/emit path such as mort_emit_c or mort_run, but no sibling is named explicitly, so an agent still has to infer the boundary.

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?

Gives clear context for when this is the right choice: quick feedback with no C compiler in the loop. It does not name an alternative or state exclusions (e.g., when to prefer a real build or run), and it is silent on what happens if neither input is supplied.

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