Is the docs lockfile stale?

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description reinforces these by stating 'Read-only — never regenerates or writes files' and adds valuable behavioral details: it only covers a specific lockfile, reports skeleton_issues when configured, and mentions CI failure. No contradiction; the description enriches the annotation context.

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 ~100 words and well-organized: it starts with the core purpose, then usage timing, read-only nature, remediation, scope, and additional output. Each sentence earns its place, though it could be slightly tighter. It's not overly verbose and is front-loaded with the essential check action.

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 has no parameters and annotations cover read-only/idempotent, the description provides all necessary context: what it checks, when to run, what to do if stale, scope limitations, and extra output. An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. The description is complete for correct invocation.

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 has zero parameters, so the input schema is trivially complete (coverage 100%). Per guidelines, a zero-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics because none exist, but this 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('.rrt/docs.lock.toml') and distinguishes it from sibling tools by explicitly naming what it covers and what it does not (e.g., 'rrt docs map --check has no tool here'). It also mentions additional output (skeleton_issues), making its purpose 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?

The description gives explicit when-to-use context ('Use after editing any source docstring... before opening a PR'), explains CI failure, and provides an alternative command ('rrt docs generate --format toml') and notes which sibling is not available. This fully routes the agent to the correct action.

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