Standards Check

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is well-covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by specifying the output format (scored checklist with pass/fail per rule), which is not in annotations. However, it doesn't disclose details like whether results are aggregated or how scoring works, but the annotations handle the critical safety profile.

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 front-loads the standards checked and immediately gives the output format. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function, with no filler or repetition.

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 tool with one parameter and read-only, idempotent annotations, the description covers the core purpose and output. While it doesn't explain how to interpret the scoring or whether the checklist is exhaustive, those details are not essential for a basic call. The description is sufficient for an agent to correctly select and invoke it.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the single 'path' parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning about the parameter beyond what is already in the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool checks against specific, well-known standards (OWASP Top 10, SOLID, 12-Factor, Clean Architecture) and specifies it produces a scored checklist with pass/fail per rule. This distinguishes it from security-only siblings like security_scan or semgrep_scan, which focus on security vulnerabilities rather than broad architectural principles.

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 implies usage (checking code against multiple standards) but does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives like code_quality or verify_all. While the purpose is clear, there is no guidance on exclusions or conditions that would favor this tool over others, nor any mention of prerequisites like needing a repository path.

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