sentinel_check_ast_invariants

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. 'Scan' and 'AST' imply a static, read-only analysis, which is useful, but the description never explicitly states that files are not modified or that no permissions beyond read access are needed. It does not contradict annotations because none exist.

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?

A single sentence with zero filler. It front-loads the action and target and wastes no words, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and an output schema, so the description need not explain return values. What is missing is guidance on sibling tool selection and any explicit side-effect statement, which leaves the description adequate but not fully complete.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds the key meaning that 'path' may be a file or directory, which is not present in the schema. However, it omits format details, recursion behavior for directories, and accepted file types, so compensation is only partial.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Scan a file or directory for Power of 10 AST safety invariant violations.' It clearly identifies the tool's object and differs from siblings like sentinel_scan_for_secrets or sentinel_audit_workspace by focusing on AST invariants. It loses a point because 'Power of 10' is unexplained jargon, but the core purpose is unmistakable.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings, no exclusions, and no alternatives. It implies 'use when checking invariants' but never contrasts with sentinel_audit_workspace or sentinel_scan_for_secrets. An agent is left to infer selection criteria from the name alone.

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