Does this repo's layout violate its own folder policy?

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description reinforces this with 'Read-only — never scaffolds files,' but adds little beyond what annotations provide. It does add context about the check being policy-based, but that's more about purpose than behavior. No contradictions.

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 concise: two sentences with the primary purpose in the first and usage guidance in the second. It is front-loaded and contains no filler or repetition. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool is simple (one optional parameter) and has an output schema, so the description need not explain return values. It covers the tool's purpose and its intended use case. It could mention what happens when no policy or template is found, or explicitly name siblings, but the core context is sufficient 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 schema has zero description coverage for the single 'template' parameter (array of strings or null). The description clarifies that the check can be against 'named built-in templates', implying the parameter selects those templates, but it does not specify formats or provide concrete examples. It adds meaning but doesn't fully compensate for the schema gap.

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 action ('Check the repo layout') against a specific resource ('[tool.rrt.folders] policy or named built-in templates'), which is clear and actionable. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like rrt_tree (which would display layout) and rrt_drift (which detects drift), but it does not explicitly name an alternative. The purpose is unambiguous and not a tautology.

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 explicit use-case guidance: 'Use before creating a new top-level directory or moving a module, so you place it where policy expects.' This tells the agent exactly when to invoke the tool. It does not mention exclusions or alternatives, but the trigger scenario is specific enough.

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