check_code

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers: read-only/no-LLM, whole-identifier matching rules, lexical-token scan versus AST, result shape, and the empty-result meaning. This is far beyond bare tool semantics and leaves little about behavior to guesswork.

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 yet information-dense: purpose, trigger, matching semantics, return format, and data source each get exactly one clause. The stylized label is a minor style choice but not waste—it broadcasts the tool's role immediately.

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 one-string-input tool with an output schema, the description covers what the tool does, when to call it, how matching works, what the result list means, and where the deprecation records come from. No critical operational detail is missing.

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 0%, so the description must supply meaning for the single 'code' parameter. It does so by defining it as the generated snippet to scan ('Call it on your own output before returning code'). It does not restate the parameter name or type, but with one required parameter that is sufficient.

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 names a specific action (scan a generated snippet) and outcome (flag every deprecated symbol it resurrects), and the 'records come from deprecate_symbol' line ties it to a known counterpart. This distinguishes it from siblings like symbol_status or check_conflict without needing to open their schemas.

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?

It gives an explicit invocation context: 'Call it on your own output before returning code.' It does not enumerate sibling alternatives or when not to use it, but the intended trigger condition is clear enough for an agent to route correctly.

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