atelierb_typecheck

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose side effects, return values, and any state changes. It only says 'typecheck' without explaining whether it is read-only, what it returns on success/failure, or whether it modifies project files. This is a minimal disclosure that adds no behavioral context beyond the name.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and directly states the purpose, making it easy to scan and understand.

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?

For a simple 2-parameter tool with full schema coverage, the description is adequate but not complete. It lacks behavioral context such as expected output, error behavior, or any relationship to the broader typecheck/proof workflow. This leaves the agent uncertain about what to expect after 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 input schema already provides 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both parameters. The description adds no extra semantics beyond using the phrase 'B component', which is redundant with the schema's 'component to typecheck'. Therefore, it meets the baseline for high 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 states a specific verb ('Typecheck') and resource ('a B component'), with clear intent ('verify syntax and type correctness'). It is distinct in purpose from sibling tools like b0check or prove, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself or mention scope beyond a single component, so it falls short of a 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., project must exist), and no exclusions. There is no mention of whether to use before b0check or prove, leaving usage entirely implied.

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