shellcheck_info

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

With no annotations, description carries full burden. It discloses the tool is cheap and does no script processing, implying no side effects. However, could be more explicit about read-only nature and output format. Still, good coverage.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence adds value – purpose, usage conditions, alternative. No wasted words.

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?

Given zero parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs: what it does, when to use it, and how it compares to sibling. Output format is implicit from version/capability info.

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?

Zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. Description adds meaning by stating what info is returned (version and capability). Baseline 4 is appropriate with no parameters needing explanation.

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?

Description clearly states 'Get ShellCheck version and server capability info' – specific verb (get) and resource (ShellCheck version and capability). Distinguishes from sibling 'shellcheck' by noting it's for info, not analysis.

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 provides when to use (verifying installation, checking available versions), when to prefer over sibling (cheaper, no script processing), and when to avoid (need analysis). This is exemplary guidance.

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