Configure vibe-check for a project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the core side effect (writes/updates .vibecheck.json) and adds a useful behavioral note that judge credentials are never stored. Still, it does not say whether the file is fully overwritten or merged, whether existing settings are preserved, or what the tool returns after writing.

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 compact and front-loaded: it begins with the key action and file, then explains preset choices, threshold normalization, the graded scale, and credential handling. Each sentence adds value and there is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 complexity (11 parameters, nested objects, no annotations, no output schema), the description covers the core concepts well but leaves several important options undocumented at the description level. There is also no mention of the return value or post-write effects, which creates a noticeable gap for an agent deciding how to use the result.

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 55%, so the description must compensate for the uncovered parameters. It does add real meaning for preset (lenient/balanced/strict), normalized thresholds, and the graded-dimension raw scale. But many nested parameters such as hard_gates, conventions, budget, and reset_attempts are not addressed in the description and rely on schema descriptions or inference.

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 first sentence is specific: it names the exact file (.vibecheck.json), the action (write or update), and the location (project root). It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the resource and action make the configuration-vs-review distinction clear.

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?

There is no explicit 'use this when...' or 'use for X, not Y' guidance. However, the description gives clear context and even maps presets to project types (prototypes, everyday code, production services), implying when each configuration choice is appropriate. No alternatives or exclusions are stated relative to submit_for_review or get_review_log.

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