Check dances

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

Annotations already establish this as a non-destructive local read (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral value by naming the four check categories the tool performs, which tells the agent what the diagnostic actually examines.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with the verb and resource first, followed by a compact enumeration of checks. Zero filler and nothing redundant with the title.

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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden, and the enumerated check categories largely cover what the report contains. It stops short of describing the result format (pass/fail, list of issues, severity), which would fully close the gap.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. It correctly avoids inventing filter options that do not exist.

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?

States a specific verb (Validate) and resource (dance catalogue) and enumerates exactly what it inspects: counts per file, packed MARKET entries, duplicate names, keybind coverage. The dance scope distinguishes it from reanim_check_movesets, though it does not name that sibling directly.

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 says what it validates but never states when to run it, what precedes it, or how it relates to alternatives like reanim_check_movesets, reanim_validate_module, or reanim_doctor. No exclusions or preconditions are provided.

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