innoslate_quality_check

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, so the agent knows this is a non-destructive mutation. The description adds valuable context beyond that: 'Innoslate stores the scores on the requirements; nothing else changes', which precisely discloses the write side effect and its scope. It does not mention permissions or re-run cost, so not a 5.

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?

Two tight sentences: purpose and return shape first, side-effect disclosure second. Every clause earns its place, including the UI mapping that helps an agent confirm identity, and there is no filler.

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 output schema, the description usefully covers the return content (per-requirement Quality Score, failed checks, sorted lowest first) and the mutation side effect. However, the opaque `document` parameter and the entirely undocumented `project_url`/`timeout_seconds` leave the agent guessing on invocation details.

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% for 3 parameters, so the description carries the full burden and largely fails. It hints that the target is a 'requirements document' (mapping loosely to `document`) but says nothing about whether that is a name, ID, or path, and never mentions `project_url` or `timeout_seconds`.

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 (Run Quality Check) and resource (requirements document), and even maps to the Innoslate UI location (More > Quality Check). It is clear what the tool does, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling innoslate_lint_requirements, which an agent might plausibly confuse it with.

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 implied usage (score a requirements document against Innoslate's built-in checks) is inferable, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative such as innoslate_lint_requirements. Given a near-identical-sounding sibling exists, the absence of routing guidance is a real gap.

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