Confirm Unaffected

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses per-file independent validation, accept/reject behavior in `results`, the condition under which `acknowledge_source_references` closes `source_reference_uncovered` files, and that accepted entries appear in the final report. It could additionally state what happens when a path is rejected, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 primary purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the subsequent sentences add genuinely useful qualification and behavioral detail. The density is high and each sentence earns its place, though the phrasing is somewhat jargon-heavy.

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 an output schema exists and there are no annotations, the description explains the tool's qualification rules, validation behavior, report impact, and the optional acknowledgment mode. The main omissions are the semantics of `run_dir` and `now`, but the essential calling context is well covered.

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 adds meaningful semantics for `paths` (only unaffected entries qualify), `acknowledge_source_references` (closes source_reference_uncovered files when the user confirms intent), and `rationale` (pass the user's own rationale). However, `run_dir` and `now` are not explained at all, leaving gaps for two of the five parameters.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource statement: 'Close every listed `unaffected_files` entry with one reviewed no-change call.' It clearly distinguishes this action from related sibling tools by defining the exact scope (unaffected files only) and the no-change nature of the call.

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 inclusion/exclusion guidance: only files on the worklist's `unaffected_files` list qualify, and a file with required changes needs a real submission rather than this no-change call. It also explains when `acknowledge_source_references=true` is appropriate, though it does not name a specific alternative sibling tool.

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