atelierb_b0check

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It indicates a validation action ('verify') which implies a read-only check, but it does not specify whether the check modifies any state, what happens on pass/fail, or any side effects. The 'required before C code generation' context is workflow guidance rather than a disclosure of runtime behavior, leaving the agent with incomplete information about side effects or outcomes.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that is front-loaded with the action ('B0 check') and includes essential context (purpose and prerequisite). There is no redundant or extraneous information, making it highly efficient for an agent to process.

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?

This is a simple tool with two required parameters and no output schema. The description captures the core purpose and a key prerequisite (required before C code generation), which is enough for an agent to understand when to invoke it. However, it does not describe the return value or error behavior, which would be helpful in the absence of an output schema. Still, given the tool's simplicity, the description is largely sufficient.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters (project_name and component_name). The description adds the domain context that the component is 'a B component' and that the check is about B0 compliance, but it does not provide additional parameter-level detail beyond what the schema gives. This meets the baseline for full schema 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 uses a specific verb phrase 'B0 check' with a clear resource ('a B component') and purpose ('verify it is B0 compliant'). It further contextualizes via 'required before C code generation', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like typecheck, prove, and generate_c. This leaves no ambiguity about the tool's core function.

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 states a clear precondition: the B0 check is required before C code generation. This gives a clear 'when to use' signal. However, it does not explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name alternative tools (e.g., typecheck, prove), so it falls short of a full 5.

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