crosspad_check

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety profile is known. The description adds value by specifying what it detects (stale exe, missing sources, dirty submodules) — a behavioral scope beyond the annotation. However, it doesn't detail what gets checked first, cost, or output format beyond the existing output schema. Adds some context but not rich behavioral depth.

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?

Three tight sentences — one states purpose with concrete detections, one gives usage positioning, one scope caveat. Zero filler, front-loaded with the most important info. Every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only check tool with 1 fully-documented parameter, a complete output schema, and readOnlyHint annotation, the description covers purpose, scope, and when-to-use. The output schema handles return values. Nothing important is missing for a filtered-diagnostic tool.

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% and the single platform parameter has a full enum + description in the schema. The description's 'Currently PC-only' reinforces the parameter constraint, but the schema already documents platform fully. Baseline 3 applies since schema does the heavy lifting; description adds marginal reinforcement.

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?

Clear specific verb ('Health check') on a specific resource ('a build'), with three concrete detections listed (stale exe, new sources missing, dirty submodules). Distinguishes from sibling crosspad_build and crosspad_repo_diff by naming what it checks that others don't cover.

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?

Explicitly instructs to 'Use before crosspad_build to decide if rebuild needed' — direct temporal guidance pointing at a sibling tool. The 'Currently PC-only' caveat sets platform expectations. This is a clear when-to-use directive with an implicit alternative.

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