fsck

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool validates integrity, schema, and constraints, and does not import. This adequately covers behavioral traits, though more detail on error output could improve 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 three short sentences, each adding value. It starts with the core action, then details checks, and ends with an analogy. No extraneous words; perfectly concise.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers purpose, behavior, and usage adequately. It could mention error handling or return format, but the core information is present and sufficient for an AI agent.

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 single parameter 'input_path' is described in the schema as 'Path to the .abhi file to validate.' The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond this, meeting the baseline for 100% schema description 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 clearly states the tool validates an .abhi memory file without importing it, specifying the verb 'validate' and the resource. It distinguishes from importing and provides an analogy to git fsck, making the purpose explicit and distinct from sibling tools.

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 advises 'run this before trusting a file you received,' giving clear usage context. While it doesn't explicitly list alternatives or when not to use, the analogy and context provide sufficient guidance for a simple validation tool.

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