check_leak_scan

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

The description discloses key behaviors: always returns status OK, no external dependencies, and behavior of optional [verify] extra. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden and mostly succeeds, though it could mention any error handling or side effects.

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 extremely concise, using only three short sentences that front-load the core purpose. Every sentence adds essential information with no redundancy.

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 the tool has no parameters or output schema, the description covers the tool's behavior adequately. It explains return value, status, and optional dependency behavior. It could slightly improve by mentioning whether the summary includes pattern counts or names, but it remains sufficient.

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?

With 0 parameters, the schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds value by explaining the optional [verify] extra and its impact on sibling tool outputs, which is not in the schema. This exceeds the baseline of 4.

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 returns a 'pattern-catalog summary + dependency availability', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'scan' by indicating it is a health/status check rather than a scanning tool.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It merely explains what it does, without suggesting scenarios or preconditions, leaving the agent without decision support.

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